Boo!

On the eve of the most theatrical of all holidays, I would like to wish everyone a safe and Happy Halloween.

It's a great day to dress up and grab some bit-size Snickers from strangers. Or, if you are on a college campus right now, it's a great day to dress only in your underwear (with a little makeup and a weird hairstyle, you'll call yourself a "Sexy Demon," or something), drink a bathtub full of Natty Light, and dance to Michael Jackson's Thriller all night.

At any rate, Halloween is a day for many to release their inhibitions and anxieties because they get to be someone, or something, else for an evening. We enjoy it because we get to lose ourselves for a little while. And sometimes a little release goes a long way. That's often what people look for in their entertainment, too. A little diversion. Of course, we may want to learn a thing or two. But, sometimes, you just need to not be "in your head." Laughter, tears, whatever. It all helps. And on Halloween, you ARE the entertainment. So live it up, gang!

By the way, if you want to see a cringe-worthy way of how NOT to be entertaining on Halloween, check out this clip from the Today Show. I'm sure this seemed like a great idea. But, many bright ideas can crumble in the execution. Talk about Dead Air! Maybe they should have rehearsed a little, eh?

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Well, in reality, it's a bit of both. Today, the New York Times released this article. The title: "Star-Studded Theatrical Hits Obscure Broadway's Challenges." It's about how Broadway, as a whole, is having a great fall. And a lot of the revenue coming in is from two plays (not musicals) consecutively grossing over a million dollars per week. Furthermore, a third play is not far under the million dollar mark in grosses. The plays are vehicles for the following stars: James Gandolfini, Jeff Daniels, Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig, Jude Law, Hope Davis, and Marcia Gay Harden. The issue? Well, there are a lot more plays on Broadway that need audiences. And they're not getting them. So, overall, the economic health of Broadway is stable and, dare I say, thriving, for the moment. But, when these stars go bye-bye, will the pulse of midtown flatline?

Are we being lulled into a false sense of security? By these PLAYS doing so well, (remember, not musicals--plays are cheaper, because even if the stars get lots of money for their performance, producers don't have musicians, extra sound cues, etc., in their overhead--and that saves cash) are we getting the feeling that Broadway is "fixed"? Because "Brighton Beach Memoirs," the classic Neil Simon comedy, is in previews just a few streets down and it's not doing so well (Like "only 50% sold", not doing so well). And, Julia Stiles and Bill Pullman are right next door from "God of Carnage" in Mamet's "Oleanna" (hell, they even have a talk-back session after the show) and their numbers are...well, they're not the same (as in: $271K vs. $1M). So, it's not really stunt casting that sells, is it?

As I might have mentioned before, I have no problem with "stars" in a show....if they're good. And the group in the "Million Dollar Club" has the reputation and the reviews to garner this box office. In short, they're good. Great, even. I mean, come on, ALL FOUR cast members of "God of Carnage" got nominated for Tonys! That's ridiculous (in a good way). Furthermore, they have good material with which to work (except, "A Steady Rain," which, I hear, would have never made it to dinner theatre if Jackman and Craig weren't attached--but, it grossed over $1.2 million last week....and I didn't). So, yeah, Broadway is better for having them. And, ultimately, they legitimize themselves (even more than they already had) as actors because they can handle the Broadway grind.

I think, for better or worse, the theatrical stars align (in more ways than one) every so often. It's a copout, but it's the truth. But, we need to roll with it because it means people are coming to the theatre now. And we need to parlay their attendance into repeat performances, so to speak. Would it be possible to have the ladies who came to see Wolverine and James Bond today, come back next week to see the new Tracy Letts play, "Superior Donuts," across the street? Regional theaters, even Roundabout, can get audiences to buy ticket packages and subscribe to their season. Can theatre owners make a deal with producers to employ the same kind of package? For example, can the Nederlander Organization couple "Wicked" (undoubtedly, their most attended show) with "Brighton Beach Memoirs" at a discount? They own both of the theaters. Why not try to fill them both?

Most importantly, the theatrical community cannot be caught in a financial trance just because Jude Law is playing with his sword 8 shows a week. That's only until December. Then what happens? New and exciting material is out there to be financed, produced, and enjoyed by all. We just need to find it, option it, and get a star to be in it....wait....

Now for something completely different (or just more of the same): Because I have mentioned this show often in my writing as an example of too much input for not enough output, here's what I'll leave you with: The Ogre is calling it quits. The winter exodus is just around the corner, gang. How are we going to beat it?

Let Your Soul Glow

I love the fall in New York. Baseball playoffs, College and NFL Football hit their stride, and the Broadway season kicks off. Last night, I saw the first offering in the "New Musical" category: Memphis. The tagline is simple: "His Vision. Her Voice. The Birth of Rock 'n Roll." Truthfully, I had been looking forward to this show since I heard it was coming to Broadway. While the story may be familiar, it is, for all intents and purposes, a truly original musical.

I chose to write about this show for a couple of reasons:

1. The talent. While the book (which is, essentially, the dialogue and song lyrics of the show) was far from perfect, the energy, and the outright talent of the cast, hooked me. Chad Kimball and Montego Glover may be the hardest working musical leads on Broadway right now. And the entire cast (and I mean, entire cast) completely charms you onto your feet. They are often better than their material. Not to say all the material is weak. But, it might benefit from some tweaking during previews. The cast, on the other hand, does not have a weak link.

2. The underlying issue regarding the birth of this genre. There was a particular scene that truly affected me in this show. I won't give it away, but you'll know it if you see it. While many of us may have been exposed to a variation of this scene in some other medium (movies, TV, etc.), it is still horribly effective. Seeing unprovoked, baseless cruelty, even though it is "make believe," evokes a frightening reminder about our culture and society. We know that Rock 'n Roll would not have existed without African Americans in the South. Furthermore, we know about the complicated history of race relations in this country. But, we need to be reminded again. Because these issues are important and still exist. Theatre can be not only our entertainment, but our education. And we need to learn from our history so that we don't repeat it.

The Laramie Project may seem like a period piece about the senseless beating, and subsequent murder, of a gay man. 1998 seems like so long ago, doesn't it? Well, last Friday, in Queens, NY, a 49-year old man named Jack Price was beaten within an inch of his life (a life which he may not have much longer) for being gay. He was leaving a local deli and was beaten for being gay. That's it. Just like so many black people in our country's young history were beaten and killed for only one reason: They were black. Are we learning?

I know I'm getting in a little deep here, but I feel this is important. Sometimes we need to be forcefully reminded that although we have come very far as a country, we still have quite a long way to go. Art holds up a mirror to society and allows us to look at ourselves to see if we really have the strength to BE the change we want to see in this world (Thank you, Mathatma). I hope we have that strength. I really do.

To Freeze or Not To Freeze

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?"

"You must choose...but choose wisely..."

Audiences who attend the upcoming Broadway premiere of David Mamet's "Oleanna" will get to stay after class during preview performances. This show premiered off-Broadway in 1992 and had audiences buzzing (for a brief synopsis and history, click here). For this production, the producers have invited special guests (including former NYC mayor, David Dinkins) to be on a discussion panel while the audience "takes a side" and the panel debates the act of sexual harassment as it pertains to the central conflict of this show. Mamet's ending is ambiguous and audiences are, essentially, forced to draw their own conclusion. So, the producers are providing a forum immediately following the performance to do just that. The show is fresh in their minds and they can witness and participate in a moderated discussion with these panelists.

I think that this is what great theatre is supposed to do. Provocative theatre often holds a mirror up to society. Cliche, but true. And even though this show was written in the early 90s, the issue is still very much a part of our culture. If you've ever worked for a corporate employer (or any employer that wants protection from frivolous lawsuits), you've been to those "mandatory seminars" that show cheesy videos about "appropriate behavior in the workplace." These post-show panels are great way to not only discuss what you think happened in the show, but to discuss the issue itself--the history, the effects, and the future. Plus, from a producer's perspective, this is a great incentive to get audiences to the less-attended preview performances.

Keep in mind, although the show did well in its LA stint, I don't know how it will be received here yet (Previews have not even started. So, it's kind of impossible to know). But, just the idea of being able to debate what you think is right or wrong, based on the information you received in the play, is a fantastic addition to the theatrical experience.

Now, I don't think this business model can be used for every show. I mean, shows like "Mary Poppins" would not illicit the same kind of discussion or debate. Although, I am curious about one minor detail. Where the hell did she come from? And where the hell did she go at the end? What, she just drops out of the sky, whips those brats into shape with a bunch of sugar (which is so bad for them, by the way--it kind of negates the "medicine," don't you think???), and then opens her umbrella and flys away? Where's she going?

I guess there are some mysteries we'll never solve.

Star Power???

So, I had the opportunity to see a Broadway show in a preview performance the other night. For those that don't know, here's what previews are all about: Before a show officially opens on Broadway, it has a number of preview performances, where tickets are sold, often at a discount because the show is not "frozen" yet. During the run of these performances, directors and producers can tweak the show based on what they saw played in front of the audience. So Tuesday's performance may be a little different from Wednesday's. Sometimes things work on paper, but not when they're mounted on a stage for public consumption. This includes changing staging, removing or inserting musical numbers, or even, in drastic cases, recasting certain parts. This allows the show to be the best it can possibly be before Opening Night. Furthermore, it starts some early buzz for the show.

Now, this blog was never intended to be a "Critic's Corner." Liking or disliking a show often has to due with subjective tastes. That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't discuss the feeling that the show I saw the other night is the reason Broadway often gets a bad reputation for dumbing down it's entertainment with attempts for fast cash based on alleged "big names" and absolutely ZERO creative substance.

I'm not going to mention the show by name, but if you've been paying attention to the upcoming Broadway season, it won't be a big mystery. This is a musical revival of a "classic" Broadway show. Now, it has been said that there are only three reasons to revive a show on Broadway:

1. The show has not been seen on Broadway in quite some time (like the recent revival of "West Side Story").
2. There is a new, fresh, directorial perspective (John Doyle's "Sweeney Todd").

3. There is a star that absolutely must be seen in an iconic role (Patti Lupone in "Gypsy").

Based on those criteria, only #1 really counts for this show. But, truthfully, there may be a good reason it hasn't been revived in a while. The material is kind of, well, weak. But, maybe the producers were banking on the star power of their leads to carry the show and raise the level of the material. Bad idea. Really, really bad idea. I often don't have a problem with a "star" in a show...if they're good. But, when talent agents negotiate a Broadway contract as something for their TV star to do on summer hiatus, or if their pilot doesn't get picked up, it hurts the show and the business.

Admittedly, there are many times where a show only exists because of the star attached. "The Boy From Oz" would not have been on Broadway without Hugh Jackman. But, Hugh Jackman is a great theatre actor, singer, and yeah, dancer (In 2003-2004, Wolverine was doing Rockette-style high kicks--Believe it. It happened). The show was good. HE made it great. He single-handedly ruled the box office and won a Tony award for his performance. In fact, instead of trying to find a replacement for him when his contract was up, the producers just decided to close the show. They even recouped the entire Broadway investment!

Look, ultimately, this show will be fine because it has a built-in audience (this is a non-profit company with a subscription base--so many tickets sell before the show is even in rehearsals) and a limited run. But, frankly, that's kind of what annoys me a bit. Did you really need these "stars" to boost your box office considering you have a loyal subscription base? There are so many actors that could have done so much more with these roles and would have made the show better. Instead, these stars have exposed the flaws of the show and their flaws as performers. Understandably, companies want to have safer bets in this economy, so you bank on "names" to get people to the theatre. But, if it's a big name on a bad product, and furthermore, the big name is part of the reason for the bad product, how have you positioned yourself for future sales? You do want your audiences to come back, don't you?

I have seen two productions of this particular show before this current revival. Both times were middle school productions performed by teenagers. Both previous productions made me care about the characters and show more than this professional production. There was more heart, excitement, and purity in those productions. I think they cost about $5 to see. Tickets for this revival range from $86.50 to $136.50. Now, I'm not really a math guy. But, something doesn't add up.

Avenue Q closed...wait....

Let's not break out the black dresses and mourning attire just yet. It turns out the closing of one of the most innovative and hilarious musicals on Broadway was only "For Now." In a groundbreaking move, the producers of "Avenue Q" joined the cast on the stage for the final curtain call yesterday and announced that they will be moving the show Off-Broadway for an open-ended run, starting October 9! This will be the first time that a Broadway show will be taken Off-Broadway for a new life. And there couldn't be a more perfect show for this move.

This is a show that broke the mold for a successful Broadway musical. Who would have thought that a musical puppet show would last six years on Broadway, recoup it's investment (and then some--apparently, it cost $3.5 million to initially produce on Broadway and has grossed over $117 million!), and win the Tony Award for Best Musical in 2004, beating this little show? And while it played Broadway successfully, it can transfer to a smaller house Off-Broadway easily, as it has a small cast and a relatively simple set. Furthermore, they can drop the prices on the tickets because, obviously, Off-Broadway shows are not as costly as those on the Great White Way. So, everybody wins! The producers still get to make money on this show and audiences will still get to see what will essentially be the same product, but it won't cost as much.

I, for one, am very pleased by this. I think this show should always be running somewhere. Not only, is it painfully hilarious, but it speaks to all of us. We all look for our purpose in life and occasionally get lost along the way. And this show tells us that we are not alone. And if that is not something you want to see in a show, I would offer this: Puppets curse and have sex on stage. And that's just awesome.

Tickets and information are here.