NYTimes.com: The Broadway producer Bob Boyett had never heard so much bad news in a single week: Four longtime investors in his shows had each backed out of his latest, a $12 million Broadway-bound revival of the hit 1964 musical “Funny Girl,” he said in an interview on Friday.
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Producer Explains the Scrapping of ‘Funny Girl’
NYTimes.com: The Broadway producer Bob Boyett had never heard so much bad news in a single week: Four longtime investors in his shows had each backed out of his latest, a $12 million Broadway-bound revival of the hit 1964 musical “Funny Girl,” he said in an interview on Friday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
We've had the argument about the use (or overuse) of star power to sell shows many a time on this blog. Always, though, they've been about artistic integrity and the value of the show rather than the value of the lead. Here, though, we have a show that is written specifically as a star vehicle, and the producers have pulled out because the star is not strong enough to justify putting a show up with strong competition and a weak economy. Boyett's choice to axe the show is a bold one for theatrical producers, especially at this point in the process, but it would be difficult to pull together over $3.5 million in funding for a second time, especially after the first set of producers left (that word making its way around producing circles). It's terribly unfortunate that all of the cast members and the venues are out of luck, though. How much will it cost, I wonder, to relinquish the reservations on the theatres though? I'm sure there's a deposit associated that cannot be funded with producers' money (as it will likely be returned for no production will be taking place).
This brings up the "what if": if the producers had really been seeking profits above all, would casting Lea Michele (as speculated originally) have made a significant impact?
Its very sad to hear another story about a show being pulled or failing because the lead isn't a big enough name to bring in revenue. It frustrates me because I can't seem to figure out how anyone these days is supposed to get their "big break" on Broadway is they never got the opportunity. And like Brian said, It is extremely unfortunate for the entire cast and crew who are now out of jobs. Sad times indeed.
Well I clearly think this shows how new musicals and shows need to be written for Broadway. In art in general there is a lack of new content being created. Sure revivals are great, but they are still revivals, audiences love them because they know then and can sing along and see the twists that people have put on them. I think that new content needs to exist so that we can progress the art form. It is important to go back to the past but I would argue that writing new scripts is more important for keeping what we do relevant. It is good to hear that this doesn't happen often but it is truly unfortunate for this performance.
I am actually really upset about this. I am a huge fan of Bartlett Sher's direction and though the choice to use Ambrose was not the most obvious, I was really excited to see what this production would become.
The choice to halt production is not wrong. There is competition this season in terms of revivals and if a major source of investment drops out, it can be very hard to find the funding again to back it. The good news is that it does not seem like the production has been scrapped--just halted. Maybe in a few years when the economic climate is right, and when it feels right to open this revival, Boyett will be able to resume production.
Somewhere...Lea Michele is laughing maniacally.
Putting that aside, however, I'm amazed at what Broadway producers can get away with these days. Mr. Boyett said in this article that the investors who dropped out included Broadway veterans, who I thought would have known the risks they were taking and what they were getting into with "Funny Girl." In addition, the reasons they cited for leaving-bad economy, too much risk, incertitude about Ms. Ambrose's ability to sell tickets-aren't new issues. If they were going to fold, they could have done so MONTHS ago, giving Mr. Boyett time to find new backers and not be faced with the difficult decision to shut down a developing production that already had so much press going for it, already had actors and designers attached to it, and already had a theatre booked both in LA and New York. I'm honestly just surprised, and sad for all involved.
I agree with Becca. Why back out now. This article doesn't say what recently made the investors all jump ship at once. As for the star vs. new talent discussion I am always a fan of new talent. It really is a shame that producers now think that a show must have a big name to be good. The article even said that it wasn't Ambrose's ability to do the part that affected the producers decision just her ability to draw tickets. So she wasn't a big enough name for them. I myself am disappointed because I love revival shows. I agree that there should be more new material but revivals have a different vibe than new shows. I vibe that I often enjoy more. But I know the producers are probably right. Nowadays people come to see stars on Broadway, the sad part is used to come see Broadway stars.
Post a Comment