The Producer's Perspective: I’m writing this blog on my last night in picturesque Sydney, Australia. I fly back tomorrow. And somehow I’ll arrive earlier than when I left. So weird. I mean, I get why that happens, but I’ll just never get over how bizarro-world it is.
Anywho . . .
I had an awesome time in Australia, and as I always do when I travel to foreign lands, I tried to pick up a few of its theatrical uniqueness so we could all learn from them.
9 comments:
This guy is great. This short pieces is actually quite entertaining. But more into that, there is this connection I made that typifies emerging global theatre. It's this idea of globalization, specifically in the theatre world (yes, I am taking globalization right now). To sum my thoughts, I think that the way Australia's theatre scene paralleles, beats, and loses to America's, you can see the sharing of ideas in the past, and the way we share ideas now and should in the future.
Though I have friends in Australia, I never thought of it as a particularly lively place, because my friends always tell me how calm it is. Especially my friend who moved from Sydney to New York City, not too long ago. At the same time it is fun to hear about emerging theater hot spots because I always believe the world can use more! I really want to go on an international tour eventually and so I believe it is important to be aware of differences between U.S. theaters and entertainment culture and that of Europe, Asia, Australia, etc...
The blogger makes some interesting comparisons between New York and Australia, however some may be a little trivial. The one that grabbed my attention was the two Broadways in Australia in Sydney and Melbourne. I like his suggestion of one being in Boston also. Before I had ever visited the US I always wondered why there was only one Broadway. However Manhattan is the perfect place to have Broadway because it is such a huge tourist destination. Boston isn't really a place that tourists say they want to go, unless for a specific reason, but the BIG APPLE is what tourists know of. However I think that it would be a good idea. It doesn't even have to be in Boston, but maybe another state. The main factors of such an undertaking would be the cost, location and possible success of such a venture. Obviously with the cost being the main factor. Additionally Manhattan is not just popular for theatre, but also for the other attractions around it. Therefore where ever the other Broadway is that state would have to make a conscious decision to develop the surrounding areas with other attractions to ensure a complete package.
The author is entertaining and makes some great points. The one I liked the most was that they have two cities competing. We have a lot of cities that have theater and do it well, but no one who really competes with Broadway. I think a big portion of that is, like Jamila said, is that New York is a big tourist attraction and hub for New York. I would see Chicago as a better option from a 2nd Broadway over Boston.
I always wanted to visit Sydney, Australia and looking at the comparison between New York and Australia just makes me eager to go see Sydney Opera House. I think I learned some from this blog because until now, I never knew there was another big Broadway in Australia, Melbourne. This first point was very interesting to look how those two are in friendly rivals that will only help them to improve the quality of their works to produce better productions. As I read this article, I was imagining also what it would be like if Boston was "almost as robust as Broadway." But as Devris mentioned, I also think Chicago will be a better option over Boston. Moreover, the one point that I really agreed on was how in Australia, one sells the ticket when the theater is a tourist attraction. I think people first go to see the opera house rather than watching production first. I think this is definitely different from New York because people tend to go New York just to see the plays. I hope to visit Australia one day to see the different aspects of theatre between Australia and New York.
I think that, like the others, the most interesting point the author makes is the difference between having one Broadway and two. I agree that this would be a huge difference, except that I don't agree with the author's assertion that Sydney and Melbourne can be equated with New York as theatre towns.
I tried looking up the annual live performance revenue of the two cities (couldn't find theatre-only revenue, but it's still interesting and relevant: http://www.liveperformance.com.au/site/_content/document/00000184-source.pdf), and in 2010, the state of Victoria (where Melbourne is) took in about $450mil with 5.8mil tickets sold. New South Wales (where Sydney is) took in $465mil with 5.8mil tickets sold.
Broadway revenue alone in 2011 was $1.08bil with 12.53mil tickets sold. That means Broadway (not including concerts and other live performances, which the Australian numbers do include) is is more than twice as large a both Australian cities combined. I feel like his comparison breaks down because we DO have multiple cities on the levels of Sydney and Melbourne: places like Chicago, Boston, DC, Philadelphia are all competing regionally in the same way and all have tours, shows, and theatre companies in roughly the same number as the Australian cities. The only reason Broadway is Broadway and there is nothing else like it is because there are very few other cities that could support such a huge performing arts industry. So no, Australia doesn't have two Broadways; it has a Boston and a DC. Truthfully, I'm not sure that any country could sustain having two real Broadways....
I think it's interesting how there are limited star runs. I agree with the blogger that this would do well on Broadway. As for the two big theatre districts in Australia, the blogger made it sound as if this is better than having one major theatre district in the US. What I like about theatre in the US is that we do have Broadway, but there are also other fantastic cities in which theatre thrives. Although Broadway is more commercial and more about revivals and famous stars, I find more pleasure in watching the smaller, original productions, like those in Boston and Chicago black-box theaters. Sometimes bigger is not always better.
What's most interesting in this article is the existence two 'Broadways' in Australia. I've always thought that one of the biggest downfalls of Broadway is that it is located in one of the costliest cities in America. It is often difficult for audiences to travel all the way to New York City to receive the high quality of theater that Broadway produces. My thought has always been that there should be a Broadway equivalent in Atlanta, Seattle, New York City, and Las Vegas (a possible fifth in St. Louis or Denver). This layout would provide more accessible theater of high caliber to varying audiences across the entire nation and not just those lucky enough to travel or live in the upper east coast.
I'd love it if everyone was "mate" here. That'd promote such a great sense of community. No wonder the rivalry between Sydney and Melbourne is so friendly, if you'd even call it a rivalry. I also think it's great that Australians are just as interested in the show that's preforming as they are the venue it's being performed in. Then again, I feel like the US has something similar to that when you consider the people who tour the Rockefeller Center by day and see a show there by night.
Post a Comment