This past week, the Broadway revival of "West Side Story" recouped its initial investment of $14 million. As I have stated before, this is a phenomenal feat, especially given the time it took (just over 7 months, including preview performances). This show had been selling out at full price (as opposed to discounted tickets through various organizations, like TKTS) from opening night through most of the summer. However, recently, ticket sales have been a little lighter. If you compare the week of June 15-21 to the week of September 21-27, you'll notice a drop in capacity of nearly 20%. Well, you could say that September is often a slower part of the year for Broadway, but check out our old standby, "Wicked" on the same weeks. Capacity is still hovering in the mid-to-high 90s, even during a slow season. Plus, "Wicked" has been on Broadway for nearly 6 years!
So, what caused this drop for WSS? Well, rumor has it that the Group Sales Department for the show reported that the Spanish language lyrics were a little too "think-y" for their audiences. So, many threatened to not book large groups to come see the show. And while matinee audiences of "blue-haired ladies" from retirement villages are often joked about in theatre, shows on Broadway would be sunk without them. So, what to do? During the final dress rehearsal, director Arthur Laurents told the audience, of which I was a part, that the only reason he wanted to bring this production to Broadway was so that audiences could see a more authentic representation of his beloved story. Thus, the Puerto Ricans would speak in their native tongue when they were speaking to each other, in both dialogue and song. But, tickets must be sold. So, in an attempt to accommodate both bus groups and tourists alike, the producers changed most of the song lyrics back to their original English translation. This show was work shopped, rehearsed, re-rehearsed, previewed, and open for nearly six months. And they changed it.
Traditionally, the content of the show's opening night performance will be the content of the show throughout the run, regardless of the length of said run. Out-of-town tryouts, rehearsals, and previews take place so that directors, producers, creators, and performers can assess strengths, weaknesses, and essentially what the show is going to be. However, recent developments on Broadway have challenged that age-old convention.
In addition to WSS, the uber-expensive "Shrek" has decided to add the familiar song, "I'm a Believer," (written by Neil Diamond) to its Broadway production. I think it's no secret that they are doing this to bolster ticket sales, but I honestly feel that if you can't get audiences to come see "Shrek" on Broadway, based on the branding alone, adding a song isn't going to help much. (Truth be told, I don't know what will help this show. But with capacity running at around 63%, they may be desperately grasping at straws--Ouch.)
There are, of course, two divergent schools of thought. One being, of course, the traditional. The production of a show should be "frozen" by opening night. While, of course, theatre is live performance and things happen differently from night to night, the content of the show (dialogue, music, lyrics, etc.) should stay the same through the run because paying audiences in May should be seeing, in essence, the same show as the audiences in June. In the documentary, "Show Business: The Road to Broadway," chronicling the paths of four different musicals as they were preparing to open and run on Broadway during the 2003-04 season, composer Stephen Schwartz remarked (and I'm paraphrasing) that there were certain changes that he would like to have made to "Wicked," but he ran out of time before the opening. So, what you see is what you get.
The other school of thought is more, well, ethereal. This is the concept that theatre is a living, breathing thing and must bend with the road. Therefore, if changes must be made during the run, then so be it. Audiences will be more grateful for it. There may be certain bits of action in a play or musical that may work better and garner a more positive response, but they are not discovered or implemented until the show has already opened. So, we should be open to change.
And I understand both sides of the argument. And please remember, this is regarding changing a show's content in a single run of a production. Essentially, it seems the motivation for this all comes down to sales. Are more people going to come see the show now that you've changed it? These changes will come at some cost to producers: at least through rehearsing the cast once the changes have been made. Producers not only have to get a show up and running, but they have to keep it running for as long as economically possible. When it no longer makes sense to keep a show on the boards, after desperate marketing, promotion, discounts, etc., it's time to pack it in. So, with that, is it going to be worth it to make these major changes to appeal to a portion of your audience?
Look, shows do change during a single run. But, that change is often organic day-to-day. There are cast changes that bring a different feeling or interpretation. An audience's response can also change the feeling of a show. But, when it comes to changing the actual content of the show (adding musical numbers, changing lots of dialogue) during its run, is it a way of "breathing new life" into it, or is it just a stunt to get more butts in the seats? Judging from some prior attempts, like the many incarnations of "The Scarlet Pimpernel" on Broadway, it doesn't really work. If you start making major changes to a production deep into its run in order to sell more half-price tickets, it shows that you are not willing to stand by your creative choices.
"West Side Story," I feel, will still continue to run because, truthfully, the investment has been recouped and its an overall good product, so that, alone, makes it competitive at the box office (in fact, once they do release tickets to TKTS, business should pick up once again). "Shrek?" Well, I don't know about that. I like that song just fine, but I don't remember a time after the mid-1970s when adding Neil Diamond actually improved your product. Have you seen the remake of "The Jazz Singer?"
No comments:
Post a Comment