Re: Tony Show is symbolic of Broadway

Date: 03 Jun 2003 21:48:03 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.arts.theatre.musicals
Size: 1,969 bytes

>From: email-address-deleted (DgSWEET)
>At a time when a six-character STRAIGHT play is considered to be expensive
>for
>off-Broadway, the idea that a large-cast musical with a reasonable ensemble
>of
>musicians can be profitable in an off-Broadway house just doesn't strike me
>as
>credible. You have to have income to pay salaries, rental, do advertising
>and
>pay back investors. You can't do that in a 200-seat house with a large
>ensemble or people would indeed be doing it.
It sounds as if you're writing an obituary for Off-Broadway. I don't share the
sentiment and the facts don't support you. In a lousy economic climate,
commercial off-Broadway theaters have not been dormant. Yes, everything is
expensive, but shows are getting done and people are even making money on them.
Our Lady of 121st Street is doing fine in a very big theater, but shows like
Last Sunday in June are doing so in medium size spaces. The Promenade, Variety
Arts, Minetta Lane, Cherry Lane etc have been filled most of the year, and the
new inventory of space on west 42nd St has too. The Hank Williams show is even
a reasonably large cast musical, and then there are the smaller shows that have
been running successfully like Menopause.
The problem in my opinion is that producers (and investors) want the pizazz of
Broadway even if it doesn't make sense. So we start to hear that shows can only
work on Broadway. The numbers can work off Broadway, where costs are lower
proportionately than ticket prices. Big is only better in the pocketbook. Yes,
everyone involved makes less money but most people don't go into this business
for the money. (And if they do they are stupid.)
>
>>My point was that their shrewdness was
>>not in making a choice to start off Broadway since they had no choice.
>
>They had the choice of produce or don't produce. That is a choice.
>
That's a non-sequitur and obvious. No show exists if its producer chooses to
produce it. Wow. We agree on that too.