Saturday, February 23, 2008
Broadway plays the market
Variety: "'I don't think the market can support so many plays,' says Bob Boyett, the prolific play producer whose output this season includes 'Rock 'n' Roll,' 'The Seafarer,' 'The 39 Steps' and 'Is He Dead?' -- not to mention upcoming revivals 'Boeing-Boeing' and 'The Country Girl.'"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As much as I accept the fact that theatre, especially Broadway, is an industry and has practical financial issues, etc., etc., it doesn't mean that I like it. It's so frustrating to read that we can't afford to do straight plays, that money means catering to a specific audience, and that theatre artists ever have to be "realistic". On some level I wish art never had to have anything to do with that horrible, stifling word: practicality. But I also think it's interesting that concerns about the economy would translate to few straight plays. It seems like Broadway musicals' markets would be narrowed too. It makes me sad that "the play" would be the first area to suffer. In general this anticipation for a greater economic slump makes me really nervous, because art can't afford it, for the very reason that it's not necessarily "practical," and will be the first thing people stop buying.
It is very sad that it can be said that there are too many plays. There are never too many plays, just too little time to see them all. I can understand why this would happen though. Audiences who come in from out of town with Legally Blonde on their minds are not likely to decide to see Is He Dead? instead which is very unfortunate because while Legally Blonde might be funny, Is He Dead? is SMART and funny.
As Corinna said it is also really unfortunate at this point in time that the economy should slow down, encouraging audiences to save their $95 for more 'practical' purchases. The first things to go during a dip in the economy are the big ticket items. Perhaps if the arts weren't so expensive this would be less of a problem.
I think it's a little ironic that it costs less to produce a straight plays than to produce a musical and the producers can't afford to produce the plays. I think the biggest distinctions that the audience make about the plays are that they are many times very dark and heavy, whereas the musicals are lighthearted and comical. I shouldn't be generalizing but that seems to be a common reason for the audience who are visiting from other states and the countries to prefer paying two-hundred-something dollars to watch a 2 hour show.
I would hope that maybe these plays can find their niche in smaller venues, which I'm sure would be much more cost-effective. I think there is still enough of an audience to see these plays that if they use a smaller house, the house will fill, and even if it makes teh same amount of money, this still would look a lot better to the producer, who would accept the show simply because it is filling the space. This past season, there were a few more plays on Broadway than normal, so I can see some justification there, but I still think that plays certainly have their place on Broadway.
I'm very excited that we are now seeing more plays on Broadway. That this season is full of musicals that are not hugely popular like musicals in the past. For a while everyone forgot that Broadway was not just made of musicals, but that some straight forward plays were also there to see. But the fact that we can not afford to do as many plays at one time is of course absurd. We should pay more attention to what plays are showing on Broadway. Not just the show stopping musicals.
Having seen a couple of straight plays on Broadway recently, I was really impressed. I feel like the musicals that have opened recently have been kind of "ditzy"- (Little Mermaid, Young Frankenstein) relying more on brand name then on actual content to attract audiences. The plays have to work from the ground up, and it's good to see that some have been doing well, even if not all of them can succeed.
Post a Comment