Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals

The Tony Awards - Why I Didn't Care This Year

I'm sure that I don't have to tell you that the Tony Awards were presented on Sunday night. I had a concert that night (see post below), so I had to watch the proceedings on TiVo delay. But truth be told, it really didn't matter to me because this season was so lackluster with respect to new musicals. Sure, there were shows that tried to do new things, particularly Fela, American Idiot, and Come Fly Away. But none of them really succeeded, in my humble estimation. (Click on the links above for my reviews of each production.)

So it really wasn't a surprise when Memphis won Best Musical. I would have preferred that Fela win, simply because it was more ambitious. I thought the first act of Memphis was super slick, but the second act descended into predictability and essentially veered off into Hairspray country. (Click on the link above for my full review.) Why did Memphis win? Simple: the critics were dumped from the voting ranks of the Tonys and the remaining voters went for the relatively safe choice. Memphis won not because it's very good (it isn't) but rather because it's more likely to be successful on the road.

So, Memphis has now joined the ranks of Raisin, Redhead, Hallelujah Baby, The Mystery of Edwin Drood, Big River, Sunset Boulevard, Fosse, Applause, and Jerome Robbins' Broadway: Big winners in a down year. Will Memphis virtually disappear from circulation as most of the above-listed shows have? Time will tell. 

The Tony Awards broadcast was rather unremarkable, although lots of people seemed to think that Sean Hayes knocked one out of the park as host. I thought he was fine, but he paled in comparison to the charm, ease, and spark that Neil Patrick Harris brought to last year's telecast.

One notable trend this year was Broadway congratulating itself on being able to attract A-list Hollywood stars. Did Scarlett Johansson, Denzel Washington, and Catherine Zeta-Jones genuinely deserve their Tony Awards? I saw neither A View From the Bridge nor Fences, so I'm in no position to judge there. (I concentrated almost exclusively on musicals this season.) But I did see A Little Night Music, and can honestly say no, I don't think she deserved it. (Click on the link for my review.) I would have been happy to see the award go to Kate Baldwin (Finian's Rainbow), Montego Glover (Memphis), or Christiane Noll (Ragtime). I think this is another case of the skewing effect of having producers, presenters, and other business types vote for the awards. Rewarding stars for coming to Broadway means more stars come to Broadway. And in the current environment in which plays and musicals are increasingly reliant on marquee names above the title, that's a very important business proposition.

Of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with merit. Or art.

Review - Enron at the Broadhurst Theatre

Never doubt the power of the Tonys, at least when it comes to marketing a show. No sooner had the Tony nominations come out than the producers of the new play Enron announced that the struggling show, which opened April 27th to decidedly mixed reviews and weak grosses, would be closing Sunday, May 9th after only 12 days of regular performances. The producers were likely hoping for more than just the four nominations that the show received, but alas, the all-important nod for Best Play was not among the four.

I have to say that I'd feel a lot worse for the Enron folks if the play itself were any good. But, in my humble estimation, it is not. I saw the show last weekend, before the closure announcement, and it wasn't anywhere near the electrifying experience I had been led to expect.

Enron was the one play of the season that I was actively looking forward to. That's probably because I had heard that it was sort of a play/musical hybrid, with ample amounts of dance, music, and stylistic touches. Plus, I had heard that the cast would feature Broadway musical stalwarts Norbert Leo Butz and Marin Mazzie. The New York Times even referred to the show as a musical in one of its Arts, Briefly notes. (The Gray Lady later appended that article with a note that, despite the songs and dancing, author Lucy Prebble considers it a play.)

After the reviews for Enron came out, I heard some speculation that the New York production wasn't well received because Americans don't like to see themselves criticized. Sorry, I don't buy that. You'd be hard pressed to find an American who would defend Enron, or to take any attack on Enron personally. No, it comes down to the effectiveness of the play itself. Despite an acclaimed London run, Enron seems to have lost something in translation. Rumor has it that director Rupert Goold was only able to spend two weeks rehearsing with the cast because of his schedule. But it's not clear to me that more rehearsal would have made much difference. It wasn't the presentation that was lacking, but rather the substance of the play itself.

Enron is certainly well-presented, but the dramaturgy is pedestrian. I'll say one thing for Prebble: she made the abstruse financial machinations almost comprehensible. But the play has no point of view, other than "Gee, weren't these guys greedy and evil?" Theatre thrives on ambiguity and nuance, and there's precious little of either in Prebble's play. There were a few times when I thought I was getting a glimpse of the people behind the disaster, particularly in the final monologue of Jeff Skilling (played here with characteristic aplomb by Butz):

You wanna hold a mirror up to nature? [A projection reveals a graph of the Dow Jones Index over the last century.] There's your mirror. Every dip, every crash, every bubble that's burst, that's you...This one gave us the railroads. This one the Internet. This one the slave trade. And if you wanna do anything about saving the environment or getting to other worlds, you'll need a bubble for that, too.

That's a fairly interesting insight, but that's really all we get, and it comes after a lot of unconvincing drama and plodding dialog. In one of the first scenes, the Andy Fastow character (played rather broadly by Stephen Kunken) is at an Enron party, and says (to no one in particular) "Look, even Ken Lay is here." In a later scene, Fastow is being bullied by some of the energy traders, and says "I'll remember this when I'm CFO." That kind of ham-handed indication should have been edited out after the first draft.

Prebble also traffics in facile and obvious metaphors: the arcane financial instruments become corporeal "raptors," in a reference to "Jurassic Park." And the energy traders take on the countenance of Jedi knights, complete with a light-saber-laden dance number. Now it's entirely likely that Prebble took those cultural references directly from the Enron folk themselves, but accuracy doesn't necessarily translate into inspiration.

I will admit that it was illuminating to see the extent to which the Bush family, George W. in particular, was in bed with the Enron folk, and relied heavily on financial contributions from same. It was also eye-opening to see how soon-to-be governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger was involved, with particular regard to the disastrous deregulation of electricity in California, which led to the rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001. The implication was that Enron helped get The Terminator into office, specifically with the goal of bringing about deregulation. But all that info is readily available elsewhere. If you're looking for some insight into the Enron fiasco, you're better off reading The Smartest Guys in the Room or renting the 2005 movie version.

Despite the play's flaws, it's possible that Enron could have found a receptive audience. I find it really hard to believe that, with this many producers (IBDB lists a whopping 34), there weren't sufficient cash reserves to allow the show time to catch on. But they probably saw the show's gross go down one week after the reviews came out and just panicked. (I'm sure there's an incisive parallel in there somewhere with the investor panic involved in the collapse of Enron, but I really can't be bothered.)

GRADE: B minus (Not nearly as insightful or thrilling as it thinks it ought to be) 

Ragtime Revival to Close Sunday

That's the thing about rumors. Sometimes, they're actually true.

Word came over the weekend that the financially ailing Broadway revival of Ragtime will close this coming Sunday. At that point, the show will have played 57 regular performances and 28 previews, and will very likely lose its entire $8-million investment.

Michael Riedel of the New York Post had reported earlier this month that such an announcement was imminent, but the show's producers asserted that, although closure had been discussed, there were no concrete plans to do so. As if to prove the show's viability, there was even a weekend-long TV blitz from December 18th to the 21st, during which Ragtime cast members appeared on both local and national TV shows. In addition, cast member Bobby Steggert announced on Twitter that rumors of the show's closure were unfounded, which prompted an article in the New York Times about how the Internet rumor mill was doing Ragtime wrong. 

Alas, the publicity efforts were too little too late, and over the weekend, Ragtime cast members heard that the show would indeed be closing on January 3rd, as had been rumored. On Monday, the producers issued the official closing announcement to the press.

So, what happened? The show's reviews were certainly strong, if not unqualified raves. Ragtime has long been a sentimental favorite with the "in" theater crowd, but as the [title of show] folks learned, that's not enough to keep a show running. Did the show simply come back to Broadway too soon? It's never too soon to bring a show back if there's a genuine audience for it. (e.g. Les Miserables, A Chorus Line, Grease.) Was Ragtime poorly marketed? Well, as I've said, the show's logo is washed-out and indistinct, but although good logos can certainly help a show establish a public presence, it's unlikely that a visual identity can make or break a show by itself.

Perhaps Ragtime simply got lost amid the blockbusters. There's been a growing tendency among casual theater goers to patronize only the biggest hits (e.g. Billy Elliot, Wicked, Jersey Boys). Although there may be room on Broadway right now for smaller shows to find a way to survive (e.g. Next To Normal, Rock of Ages), even a scaled-down Ragtime had a cast of 34 and some 30 people in the orchestra. Perhaps Ragtime is simply too big to ever succeed on Broadway.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- this Ragtime failed because the word of mouth just wasn't there. Sure, there are plenty of musical queens and theater mavens who've been talking the show up big time on Twitter and Facebook and the [shudder] theater chat rooms. But big shows rise and fall based on the pass-along "wow" factor. Maybe this production just wasn't getting the all-important man/woman on the street to go home and say, "Hey, you really gotta see this." As I said in my review, I'm a huge Flaherty and Ahrens fan, and an ardent admirer of Ragtime as a show. But I wasn't really blown away by this particular production. There seemed to be something missing, a lack of an emotional center. There was no questioning the talent on stage, but for me there just wasn't anything outstanding about the production itself.

The current production notwithstanding, Ragtime remains, in my humble estimation, a musical for the ages. It has a strong book and an amazing score, and I've been very gratified by how it has caught on in the provinces, despite the need for a large number of African Americans in the cast. (African Americans haven't always been interested in musical theater, although thankfully that seems to be changing.) If you have a chance to see the show before it closes, I recommend taking it in. But I remain quite confident that this isn't the last we've seen of Ragtime.

ADDENDUM: The producers of Ragtime have announced that the show will play an extra week of performances, and will now close on January 10th. At that point, the show will have played 65 regular performances. Could this be the start of a trend? Or will the week amount to little more than a dead-cat bounce? I just got a ticket to see the show again on Friday, January 8th. Stay tuned for my re-review.

Avenue Q at the New World Stages

When Avenue Q opened last week at its new Off-Broadway home, the New World Stages, a lot of people in the theatrical community were paying close attention. Of course, it's a much-beloved show, and many are simply wishing it well. (Except, perhaps, the producers of Wicked, from whose verdant hands Avenue Q so summarily snatched the Best Musical Tony in 2003.)

But the main point of interest seems to be how well Avenue Q will do financially after making this unusual move. It's not entirely unprecedented for a Broadway show to move Off Broadway, but it's certainly rare. And if Avenue Q succeeds, we can probably expect other small shows to follow suit. There's talk that The 39 Steps will make a similar move after it closes at year's end at the Helen Hayes. Perhaps Next to Normal and Rock of Ages might consider returning to their Off Broadway roots after their respective Broadway stints have run their course.

I've been enamored of Avenue Q ever since I caught one of its Broadway previews back in 2003. I've subsequently seen the show on tour (read my review), and then revisited the Broadway production shortly before it closed (read my review). And, over the weekend, I caught the show once again at its new digs. And I'm happy to say that the show has lost none of its charm upon multiple viewings. Of course, part of the fun for me the last two times is that I saw the show with friends, and got to witness their delighted reactions to the show upon their first viewings. But even when I saw the show solo on tour, I was still caught up in the response of the rest of the audience.

The performance of Avenue Q that I saw over the weekend featured three understudies, indicating that even Off Broadway shows are not immune to the scourge of absenteeism that seems to be sweeping New York theater. Fortunately, the standbys were mostly stellar, particular the charming Jed Resnick as Princeton/Rod and the delightful Ruthie Ann Miles as Christmas Eve.

The more I see Avenue Q, the more I'm struck not just by its wit, but also by its wisdom. Yeah, I know, that sounds pretty pretentious. But there's so much about the show that's just plain smart, from the wistful nostalgia of "I Wish I Could Go Back to College" to the downright Buddhist quality of "For Now." So I wish the show well in its latest incarnation, and strongly recommend that you make your way to 50th Street, between 8th and 9th to catch the show, if you haven't already.

Or even if you have.

iSondheim with Barbara Cook?

We've been hearing off and on about a new revue of Stephen Sondheim's work with the unbearably precious name iSondheim. The show is being compiled and directed by James Lapine, longtime Sondheim collaborator.

The show was originally supposed to run at Atlanta's Alliance Theater this past April and May, but that production was canceled because of the projected production costs and the weak economy. As the awful title implies, iSondheim was to have included a great deal of technology -- multimedia, video, projections, etc. -- featuring interviews with Sondheim himself, intermingled with live performances of songs from Sondheim's career. But the production requirements apparently made the show untenable for a regional, non-profit run in the middle of a recession. 

More recently, there's been chatter on the Rialto about a New York run for iSondheim, under the auspices of the Roundabout Theater, and starring none other than the glorious Barbara Cook, who would be making her first appearance in a non-concert, non-benefit Broadway show in nearly forty frickin' years. The show would also feature two additional singers, yet to be cast. The wonderful Liz Callaway was supposed to have starred in the Alliance run. Wouldn't it be great to see her treading the boards again? Perhaps with her equally marvelous sister, Ann Hampton Callaway?

However, iSondheim seems to have hit a bit of a snag, according to Michael Riedel's column today in the New York Post. Apparently, Mr. Sondheim himself isn't happy with the revenue percentage that the Roundabout wants from any future touring company of the show. Something tells me Steve is going to get his way; it would seem that the Roundabout needs this show -- financially and artistically -- a lot more than Sondheim needs the Roundabout. The good news is that the iSondheim name, according to Riedel, is very likely to change. He mentions that both Virtual Sondheim and Sondheim on Sondheim have been under consideration as replacement titles, although neither seems to be much an improvement. 

Here's hoping that the differing parties iron out their differences so that we can all get to see both Stephen Sondheim and Barbara Cook back on Broadway where they belong.

Interview - Diane Paulus on Hair

I recently had a chance to speak with the delightful Diane Paulus, whom most of you probably know as the talented director of the current hit Broadway revival of Hair. Well, Paulus also recently took over as the artistic director of the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge, Mass., and I was interviewing her for an article that I was writing for artscope a local arts magazine.

That article is about the A.R.T.'s upcoming season, and Paulus's plans to shake up that 30-year-old institution, but I couldn't resist throwing in a few questions about Hair. The article comes out in September, but here are some musings from Paulus that didn't make it into the article.

EIKILFM: I have to say that you completely changed my opinion about Hair. I always thought it was this great score hampered by an overly fragmented libretto.

PAULUS: Well, we really did a lot of work on the book. We streamlined and focused it. During the Hair rehearsal process, I had this deep partnership with James Rado. [Rado was one of the original authors of Hair. His writing partner, Gerome Ragni, died in 1991.] I never talk about it as a revival, but as a re-imagining of the original work. Jim and I were joined at the hip, working on a way to craft a new version of the book. We built a very trusting relationship, and there was this incredible combination of Jim, who was there and lived it, and created the show, and me, coming in with a deep respect for the show, but also a fresh eye. Jim had every bit of information about the show, from when it was created to how it's been done for the past forty years.

EIKILFM: What's your personal connection to the show?

PAULUS: Well, I was born in 1966, so I wasn't really old enough to remember the 1960s. I always like to say that I missed my decade, because I really wish I had lived through the '60s. But I guess now I have the benefit of not having seen the original show and getting hung up in my head about it was supposed to be. When I got the call from the Public Theater, I had never seen a production of Hair or even read the script, just the liner notes from the album. So when I started to work on the show, I had this deep love of that wonderful music, and I had my fantasy about how the production would sound and what it would feel like, and how to revive the '60s from the inside out.

EIKILFM: The cast of Hair really seems like this cohesive unit. How did you achieve that tribal feel in rehearsal?

PAULUS: It actually started one step before the rehearsal process with casting. When I was asked to do the original concert version in 2007, I knew that we needed the right people, people who were going to invest themselves in the show not as actors but as human beings, fully relating to the issues. Of course, we needed people with great voices -- and great hair! --  but we really needed to know where their hearts and minds were. And that led to the rehearsal process, where it wasn't just a show but a cause, a mission, a communication that matters. And they took that process very seriously. And now, two years later, 23 of those original 26 people are still with the show. At first, a lot of them were daunted. They said, "Our generation isn't like this." But that was in 2007, pre-Obama, and I think now young people have realized that they can create change, and they're all like activists now. 

EIKILFM: For instance, the upcoming march on Washington.

PAULUS: That's right. We’re all going to Washington for a day. [Paulus refers to the National Equality March in support of gay-marriage rights. The producers of Hair have canceled the October 11th performance so that the cast can participate.] You can tell that the cast really take the show and its message seriously, and that's what people are responding to when they see the show. As we need to recast, there will be a weeding-out process as we try to find people who aren't just talented, but who also care passionately about the planet and gay rights, and other important issues. We just recast our first new Broadway cast member, and she’s all of like 20 something, and she said to me, "I am so honored to be part of this. It means so much to me to be a part of a show that I can really engage myself in." When you think about it, there really aren't that many opportunities like this, so I think we'll be able to find more people like her out there.

EIKILFM: What have you noticed about the audience response to Hair?

PAULUS: What makes me happier than anything is to see the young people, coming to Broadway and seeing and reacting to the show as if it were written yesterday. Because Hair really isn't a period piece. It's a show that says just as much about today as it does about the '60s. It says, "This is American history, but this is also what it means to be alive and a young person, even today." So you have these young people coming to the show, and they're owning it, and I just love that. 

EIKILFM: Hair features a lot of audience involvement, and seems to invite the audience to participate, sing along, even dance in the aisles. A number of recent newspaper articles in both New York and London have lamented the deterioration of theater behavior. It sounds as though you might have a different take on that.

PAULUS: Well, I think there are different kinds of theater. Historically, theater hasn't always been this quiet, sit-down affair. It certainly wasn't in Shakespeare's day. Theater is like sports, you have golf and tennis over here, and the whole audience gets quiet, and you don’t make a sound. At the other end, you have ice hockey and everybody's screaming. But we never mix up golf and hockey. I honestly believe there’s a spectrum, even in theater. Are you going to talk at a Peter Brook production of Hamlet? Or The Seagull? Of course not. You have certain types of behavior that work for different kinds of theater. But my gripe is that people tend to say, "Well, that’s the way theater is. You have to be quiet." Everything doesn't necessarily have to be like The Seagull. You can have Hair or The Donkey Show. [Paulus's first production at the A.R.T. is a re-staging of her New York hit, The Donkey Show, a raucous retelling of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream set in a 1970s disco club.] I think we have the possibility of letting other sorts of behavior be released, and enlivening what we think theater is and what it can do. 

EIKILFM: Hair recently recouped its initial investment. That must be gratifying, given the difficulty the show had actually making it to Broadway.

PAULUS: I love that those producers [Jeffrey Richards and Jerry Frankel] who stepped forward and helped us make it, that they got their money back, and that means that they'll take that risk again.

Is Spider-Man Dead?

I'm going to try to avoid the spider metaphors here, but the Interwebs (oops...) have been all atwitter this week about the alleged demise of the highly anticipated Spider-Man musical. We've been hearing for months about how director Julie Taymor was being rather profligate with the investors' money. The show's capitalization has been rumored to be as high as $45 million, which is more than twice as expensive as any other show in Broadway history.

Last week, Variety reported that the massive production had ground to a standstill because the investors have simply run out of cash. Earlier this week, the gadflies on All That Chat were buzzing about how the actors in the show had been released from their contracts, and were free to pursue other work. Then today, Michael Riedel, The New York Post's gadfly extraordinaire, gleefully announced that, although the show's investors have been frantically trying to line up additional financing, no one is biting, and the show may well be dead in the water.

But even if Spider-Man does proceed, the prospects for the show turning a profit would likely be grim. According to Riedel's sources and/or calculations, with a $45-million capitalization, Spider-Man would need to run at capacity for 5 years to break even. Compare that to Wicked, which despite a capitalization north of $10 million, reportedly recouped in about 14 months. One of the factors driving up the Spider-Man production costs was that the Hilton Theater reportedly needed to be gutted and rebuilt to accommodate Taymor's design concept. Well, the Hilton has indeed been gutted, but now that Spider-Man is apparently moribund, that leaves Broadway with a big ole empty cavern on 42nd Street.

Potentially lost in the shuffle is a score by Bono and The Edge, which Riedel refers to as "moody and melodic, if not all that theatrical." Could the score possibly resurface, say as a concept album, or individual tracks on a future U2 release? Or perhaps Spider-Man the show could find a berth in, say, Las Vegas, where a $45-million price tag would be more in line with the other resident shows ensconced on the strip? Whatever, it's looking increasingly likely, if not downright certain, that Spider-Man won't be flying on Broadway any time soon.

Vanities at the Second Stage Theater

As you may know, the new musical Vanities was slated to open at Broadway's Lyceum Theater this past season, but the run was canceled when the economy soured.

Well, the economy did these folks a favor. If Vanities had actually made it to Broadway, chances are it would have been a short-lived embarrassment, like Glory Days, or disappointment, like The Story of My Life. Instead, the show gets a one-month run at a non-profit theater, New York's Second Stage, the possibility of a cast album, and a shot at a life in regional productions. Because, despite a professional presentation and a perky, talented cast of three (Lauren Kennedy, Sarah Stiles, and Anneliese Van Der Pol), Vanities is a musical that makes little lasting impression.

One of the show's key liabilities is its inoffensive but forgettable score by David Kirshenbaum (Summer of '42). It's hard to pin down exactly what's wrong with the score, because it's pleasant enough in performance. But the songs don't stick, either in terms of memorability or in serving a dramatic purpose. Part of the problem could be that the score only intermittently reflects the time period in which the scenes are set. It doesn't grow in its cultural influences as you might expect from a musical that spans the 1960s through the 1980s. There are some Burt Bacharach touches in some of the orchestrations during the '60s portion of the show, but after that the generic score becomes timeless, but not in a good way. It doesn't help that Kirshenbaum throws in such anachronisms as "living large" and "chatty Cathy" well before these terms came about.

Even worse, the songs don't tell the story, they stop it. Every number feels like a digression from the plot rather than something that enhances it. I'm not saying that Vanities shouldn't have been a musical, but the current score doesn't add much to the drama or to our understanding of these characters.

The score might have seemed less egregious had the surrounding text had greater depth. The main problem with Jack Heifner's book, which is based on his 1976 play of the same name, is that there really isn't any drama until about an hour into the show. Before that, we just see these three high school friends graduate, attend college, and head off into the world to inevitably and predictably grow apart. But when the drama finally comes, it's really too late for us to start caring. In the show's pivotal scene at a New York penthouse apartment, the girls finally have a knock-down drag-out fight, and things start to get interesting. But in the following scene, all is forgiven and we're forced to accept an artificially easy reconciliation. Then it's off to the final number, chockablock with platitudes, and the characters walk off into the sunset together. That's right: they literally walk off into the sunset. Oy.  

The problems with the score and the book are probably so systemic that no director could have fixed them. Even so, Judith Ivey probably wasn't the right choice of director. There's a big difference between directing a previously existing show and steering a developing work towards a final product. There are some really terrific developmental directors (Hal Prince, James Lapine) and there are directors who work better on finished material (Walter Bobbie). I'm going to give Ivey the benefit of the doubt and assume that if she's ever going to be a great director, she might be better off in the latter category.

Vanities runs at the Second Stage until August 9th. I have a feeling that, should this production produce a cast album, the show will get a decent amount of play in regional theaters. If there's no CD, this is probably the last we'll see of Vanities.

Why File Sharing is Bad

Recently, I was reading a Washington Post article by theater critic Peter Marks about the state of the Broadway cast-album business. As regular readers may know, I have far more cast recordings than is probably wise, so I have a vested interest in this topic. Marks does a great job of setting the historical context and laying out the economic difficulties that labels face when they record and issue cast albums. It used to be that Broadway music and popular music were the same, but it's been a long time -- decades, in fact -- since that was true. 

Lately, most of the major releases we've seen have come from the likes of Kurt Deutsch at Ghostlight Records (whose recent releases include Next to Normal, In the Heights, and Hair) and Tommy Krasker at PS Classics (Xanadu, The Story of My Life, and the upcoming release of Sondheim's Road Show). Every once in a while, we get West Side Story from Sony Masterworks Broadway, or Shrek from Decca Broadway, but for the most part Broadway cast recordings of late have come from the small boutique shops above.

Which brings me to my main point: file sharing is bad. It's bad for these small, struggling companies, and it's ultimately bad for the people who love musical theater. Because, here's the bottom line: if we're not willing to buy cast albums, then we're not going to be able to buy cast albums. I hear the excuses all the time: CDs are too expensive, and how can I possibly get all the music I want if I can't pay for it. Well, you know what? Maybe that means you don't get to listen to all the music you want. We all have to live within a budget, and make purchasing choices.

I'll admit, this diatribe is purely selfish on my part. I want to continue to be able to buy cast albums and if everyone keeps sharing files, then the few remaining companies that actually do produce cast albums will either stop doing so or simply go out of business. I know that file sharing is something that's hard to stop, and that it's very tempting to join certain password-protected blogs, or online trading communities, which allow you to download music free of charge. I've been on these sites myself, and I've downloaded stuff, but only things that weren't commercially available, like demos and stuff that's been long out of print.

Human nature is what it is, and to a certain extent the music companies are fighting a losing battle: because it's so easy to download and share music, it's going to continue, and ultimately there's not a lot that the recording business can do about it. But I don't really care about pop stars and rappers. For all I care, you can share their music to your heart's content. But when it comes to musical theater, I would respectfully ask my readers (and my students) to do the right and honest thing and abstain from file sharing. In the long run, you'll thank yourself.

Guys and Dolls Revival Closing

The first post-Tony musical has fallen, folks.

The producers of the current revival of Guys and Dolls have announced that the show will play its final performance this Sunday, June 14th. The show will have played 113 performances and 28 previews.

One of my readers informs me that the running cost (i.e. "nut") for Guys and Dolls is about $520,000 a week, and I count only nine weeks during the show's run in which the grosses exceeded that amount. Based on my calculations, as of last week the show had brought in total of $926,000 over its running costs. Since the typical musical of that size usually costs upwards of $10 million to mount, that would put Guys and Dolls at least $9 million in the hole. Youch. Yeah, there are a lot of assumptions in that calculation, but it gives you a sense of the magnitude of the loss.

I was one of the few people who genuinely enjoyed this production of Guys and Dolls. (Read my review) The show wasn't particularly memorable, but it represented a reasonably entertaining night at the theater. I was especially fond of Lauren Graham as Adelaide and Kate Jennings Grant as Sarah. Yeah, the show couldn't hold a candle to the 1992 Guys and Dolls revival, but few shows could. As usual, the producers have announced that there will be a national tour. Yeah, whatever. That's part of the drill: acknowledge the exceptional nature of the cast and crew, blame it on the economy or the sheer number of competing shows, hint at a national tour, etc. But I would actually be surprised if that tour actually materialized.

My blogger friend Esther quipped on Twitter earlier today "I guess I'll have to wait until the next Guys and Dolls revival." Well, Esther, love, if history is any indication, you won't have to wait very long.

Post-Tony Handicapping - Who's Gonna Close?

The first official post-Tony casualty will be Neil LaBute's Reasons to Be Pretty, which will close June 14th after about 80 regular performances. But that's a play, right, dear reader? We wanna know which musical will close first, don't we?

My money is on the Guys and Dolls revival, which last week played to 61% capacity, with an average ticket of about $70. The show's grosses have been heading steadily downward since hitting a high of about $750,000 in April, and have lately been around $400,000. And the lackluster Guys and Dolls production number on the Tony broadcast, combined with a grand total of zero Tonys earned, probably won't help to turn that trend around. 

On the "original" musical front, the show that would seem to be in the most immediate danger is 9 to 5, which played to about 75% percent last week, with an average ticket of $75. The show's recent weekly grosses of around $750,000 might be enough to keep it alive, if it can sustain that level of performance. I have a feeling that the show may last through the summer, buoyed by the strong tourist trade in New York, but will probably close come fall.

Then there's Next to Normal. Although the show has recently seen its attendance rise to more than 90%, its average ticket has been about $65. The show's grosses have peaked at around $350,000, although since the show has a cast of six and a modest band, that may be enough to keep the show afloat. Will the show's three Tonys (best score, best actress, and a shared Tony for best orchestrations) give it a much-needed lift in its grosses? N2N does seem to be building a significant following, but then so did [title of show].

As for the musicals that have legs, clearly Billy Elliot and West Side Story are in no danger of closing any time soon. Both are doing spectacularly at the box office. (Click on the show titles for historical grosses.) And Hair, after a slow start, has been growing steadily in ticket sales and grosses, and I see that growing even stronger after its Tony win for best revival and the national exposure from the show's terrific title number.

What's your take, dear reader? Did the Tony broadcast make you more or less likely to see the shows listed above? Which do you think will last, and which are not long for this world? 

P.S. When I originally posted on this topic, I completely forgot about Shrek. Kinda tells you something, doesn't it? Well, Shrek is a real wild card, and rather tough to predict, because rumor has it that the show has pretty much been running in the red since it opened. The show's average ticket price has been about $70, its attendance at about 70%, and its grosses around $650,000. Many other musicals would be able to make a profit at that level, but Shrek has a huge cast and presumably a pretty big weekly nut to meet. But but since Dreamworks has really deep pockets, and a tremendous amount to prove, there's no telling how long they're going to be willing to run the show at a loss before taking it on tour and cleaning up in the provinces. 

P.P.S. Where is my head today? I also forgot about Rock of Ages. Mea culpa, dear reader. Well, ROA has also been seeing its grosses increase steadily since it opened. Lately it's been pulling in about $450,000 a week, and it very well could be making a profit at that level. The average ticket has risen slowly from about $40 to around $64, which is OK, but could be better. But what's interesting is that the attendance percentage has stayed roughly the same, about 90%. Which means that the audience size has been relatively constant, but the amount that people are paying to see the show is rising. If that continues, the show might just return its investment and settle in for a profitable run.

Vanities to Play Second Stage

It seems that the musical Vanities will in fact play New York later this year, although not on Broadway, at least not yet. The show was originally supposed to play the Lyceum Theater, but the chancy economic environment forced the producers to reconsider.

Now comes news that the show will find a berth at New York's Second Stage, an Off-Broadway nonprofit theater company. Vanities will close out 2ST's current season, taking the place of  Douglas Carter Beane's recently postponed play, Mr. and Mrs. Fitch.

The show will apparently retain its creative team from its recent run at the Pasadena Playhouse: Judith Ivey will continue as director and Dan Knechtges (Xanadu, Spelling Bee) will provide the musical staging. The cast will likely comprise  Lauren Kennedy, Sarah Stiles, and Anneliese Van Der Pol, as it did in Pasadena. Vanities has a book by Jack Heifner, who wrote the 1976 play upon which the musical is based, and music and lyrics by David Kirshenbaum (Summer of '42).

Previews for the show will begin June 30th toward a July 16th opening. The show will have performances through August 9th. If that run is successful, will a Broadway run follow? I would imagine that's what the producers are hoping for, and the 2ST run represents a relatively safe way of testing the New York waters. Heck, it worked for both The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee and Next to Normal.

Speaking of Next to Normal (er, excuse me, next to normal), the reviews for that show, which came out today, were pretty darned positive. Regular readers will recall that I have a checkered history with this show and its librettist, Brian Yorkey. Well, I'm going to be seeing the show again next week. Never let it be said that I won't give a show a second chance. But if Yorkey's apparent message -- which seemed to be a repudiation of psychiatry -- remains intact, I certainly reserve the right to speak out against it, as I did when I saw the show last year.

Guys and Dolls: Will it Run?

The latest revival of Guys and Dolls appears to be in a bushel and a peck of trouble. The reviews were nothing less than excoriating. (See the critical roundups on DidHeLikeIt.com and Critic-O-Meter.)

But business for Guys and Dolls has actually been fairly decent. The show had been playing to over 90% capacity until the reviews came out, but even after it was at about 85%. Of course, most of those ticket sales were discounted: the show's average ticket price has been about $65. It's not clear whether the $400,000 to $500,000 the show has been pulling in weekly is enough to cover expenses.

I have a ticket to see Guys and Dolls on March 25th, but I've been concerned that the show will close before I get to see it. This would actually be the first time, in 30-plus years of theater going, that I would have a ticket for a show that closed before I could see it. I did have a ticket for the aborted revival of Godspell, but that show didn't close, it just never opened.

According to Michael Riedel of the New York Post, the producers of Guys and Dolls plan to run it for at least seven weeks to see if it has legs. Apparently the audience response has been positive, or at least that what producer Howard Panter told Riedel. (Yeah, well, I seem to recall that the audience responded quite positively to A Tale of Two Cities and Frankenstein, too.) Could positive word of mouth turn Guys and Dolls into a modest hit? Or will recession-weary and review-cognizant theater patrons opt for the better received revivals of West Side Story and Hair? Will I even get the chance to see the show and weigh in with my own critical take?

Stay tuned. 

New Hair Logo Heinous

I was playing around on IBDB tonight, and I came across what appears to be the logo for the upcoming Broadway revival of Hair. (See image left)

Pretty hideous, huh? The colors are washed-out and lifeless, the font is cheesy, and the composition is flat. I find nothing redeeming in this image, and it does little to make me want to see the show. And I've seen it already, and can attest to its quality. (Read my review of the show's Central Park stint.) There's a lot more inspiration involved in the production itself than apparently went into its visual identity. I still plan to see it again, but I can only hope the marketing folk plan to come up with something a bit more evocative and esthetically pleasing to get other folks interested.

The full cast for Hair has yet to be announced, but news has been trickling out. Gavin Creel, who was to have been Jesus in the canceled...er, postponed revival of Godspell, was recently cast in the central role of Claude. I saw Jonathan Groff play the role, and he was terrific, but apparently the Hair producers are asking the performers to work for scale, and Groff balked. Another potential performer who's taken a walk is Eden Espinosa, who was supposed to have played Sheila, but recently withdrew "for personal reasons." (Hmm...) No word yet on whether Will Swenson will return to the show as Berger, or whether he'll instead follow Rock of Ages to Broadway. The ROA gig might mean more money, although perhaps not, since the ROA tickets are priced to sell (at a relatively inexpensive $99 price point).

And it's not just the on-stage players in Hair that are changing. Producer Elizabeth I. McCann was recently relegated to more of a supporting role when the Public Theater brought in Spring Awakening producers Jeffrey Richards and Jerry Frankel as lead producers. Perhaps this is because McCann was having trouble raising the money to get the show up and running? Whatever, the opening night for Hair has moved from March 5th to March 31st to accomodate the personnel changes. Will the show retain its Central Park sparkle amid the sturm and drang? Stay tuned.

In the Heights Recoups Investment

Again, all is not entirely dire on Broadway. The producers of the Tony-Award-winning musical In the Heights have announced that the show has recouped its initial $10 million investment after 10 months and 337 performances. That's actually relatively fast, especially since the show has often played to not-quite-capacity crowds. By comparison, Jersey Boys recouped in around 8 months, Wicked in about 7 months, and Spamalot in a little over a year.

I certainly don't begrudge In the Heights its success. Although I really didn't care for the show when I saw it Off-Broadway (read my review), I warmed up to it considerably when I saw the Broadway version (read my re-review). The show is energetic and heartfelt, if a tad cliché, and there's lots of genuine talent on stage and behind the scenes.

It will be interesting to see what happens to In the Heights now, after the holiday season. So many other musicals have been closing left and right, both former hits and shows that never quite gained their economic footing. It seems that only the guaranteed bullet-proof hits are going to make it through the winter, and In the Heights, while now profitable, hasn't quite achieved bullet-proof status. The show's attendance averaged about 84% in 2008, and its grosses hovered at around $750,000, occasionally tipping above the million mark. In any other year, those stats would indicate a show with some legs. But will Broadway in its current economic state be able to accommodate anything other than the mega-musicals and the limited-run, star-driven plays?

Pal Joey Revival Extends

All is not entirely bleak on the Broadway front. The Roundabout's production of the classic Pal Joey has extended its run at Studio 54 by two weeks. Grosses for the show have been thoroughly decent, if not overwhelming, and the advance must be relatively solid--else why extend?

This revised version of Pal Joey, with a new book by Richard Greenberg (Take Me Out, The American Plan), opened in December to mixed reviews after losing leading man and Tony Award winner Christian Hoff to a reputed wounded foot.

The actual story seems a bit more complicated. According to Michael Riedel of the New York Post, various production sources weren't thrilled with Hoff's performance. Other reports have intimated that Hoff may have been too old for the part (he's 40), and that choreographer Graciela Daniele may not have been happy with Hoff's hoofing.

The loss of Hoff makes me far less excited about seeing the show; he was simply sensational in Jersey Boys, and Joey seemed like a role tailor-made for his talents. But I'm always up for some Stockard Channing, and Martha Plimpton is apparently making quite the sensation in her Broadway musical debut. I'll be seeing the show on February 7th. Look for my review here shortly thereafter.

Gypsy Revival Closing Earlier

The current Broadway revival of Gypsy, which had previously announced a March closing date, will now be closing two months earlier. Apparently, ticket sales beyond the holiday season weren't robust enough to keep the show running through the traditionally lean -- and this year, downright anorexic -- winter months.

Of course, we shouldn't be surprised: one of the defining characteristics of the theatrical season has been the double closing announcement: shows that announce one closing date, only to move that date up because of even more disappointing ticket sales.

No word yet on how will this affect the previously rumored filming of this production.

Vanities Postpones Broadway Run

The Broadway-aimed musical Vanities has postponed its Broadway run. The show was to have opened in February at New York's Lyceum Theater, but the producers recently announced that they would be postponing the show's Broadway bow until an undetermined later date.

The producers have apparently decided not to hazard an extended commercial run at a time when even former powerhouse shows are shuttering (Spamalot, Hairspray), and smaller musicals don't seem to stand a chance ([title of show], 13). It makes me wonder whether the producers of the similarly modest musical The Story of My Life, which recently booked the Booth Theater towards a February opening, will make a similar decision to postpone.

The good news is that there are still shows that are making money. Both All My Sons and The Seagull recently announced that they had made back their initial investments and are currently running in the black. And Wicked, Jersey Boys, Billy Elliot, and South Pacific are all still playing at or near capacity. Even so, the shows that are making money are either the blockbuster musicals or the star-heavy limited runs. Until the economy starts to turn around, we're probably not going to see small star-less musicals making much of a profit.

If we see them at all, that is.

They All Fall Down: Grease and Boeing-Boeing

Come January, there are going to be a whole lot of empty houses on Broadway. Just yesterday, the hilarious and profitable revival of Boeing-Boeing announced that it will close January 4th. Now today comes news that the critically reviled but commercially popular revival of Grease will shutter on the same day.

Both shows will have national tours; in fact, the Grease tour recently launched in Providence. The 45-week Boeing-Boeing tour will kick off in September of 2009, although no dates have yet been announced.

OK, so this means that, come February, the following shows with open-ended runs will have closed: Young Frankenstein, Spring Awakening, Hairspray, Spamalot, 13, Grease, and Boeing-Boeing. The Gypsy revival will close shortly after that, in March. There are certainly new shows on the horizon to fill some of those theaters (9-to-5, The Story of My Life, Vanities, and Blithe Spirit, to name a few), but I get the sense that come spring, there will be quite a few Broadway houses dark, which is a sight we haven't really seen for quite a while.

Grease is the only Broadway show currently running that I either haven't seen or don't have tickets for. Will I be rushing to catch it before it closes?

In the words of Mayor Shinn, not on your corn plasters.

Young Frankenstein to Close in January

It's Alive!?

Yeah, well, not for much longer.

You can add the woefully disappointing Young Frankenstein to the ever-growing list of shows that will shutter in January. Although Mel Brooks and his fellow producers have famously refused to make their numbers public, the show will have played only 484 regular performances, and with an estimated capitalization somewhere in the $20 million neighborhood, that probably means the the show will close at a considerable loss.

Tee hee.

I've made no mystery of my unmitigated disdain for this show. See my review of the cynical and uninspired show itself, as well as my prior and subsequent screeds decrying the sheer arrogance of the production team.

The hangar-like Hilton Theater is unlikely to remain vacant for long, as rumor has long held the the upcoming Spider-Man tuner was hoping to spin its Web within its cavernous hall sometime during the 2009-2010 season. The Spidey musical will reportedly feature direction and design by Tony winner Julie Taymor as well as a score by frickin' Bono and The Edge of U2 fame.

Yeah, another pre-sold, brand-name, would-be blockbuster aborning. But at least we know the score will rock, and the design will be nonpareil. And pre-sold blockbusters aren't necessarily a disaster in the making. Look for my review of the slightly flawed but pleasantly entertaining Shrek later in the week.