OnStage: On September 4th, Broadway will undergo a brief period of time, in which there will be only one non-musical that is still running on Broadway. Following the closings of An Act of God and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, The Humans – the recent winner of the Tony Award for Best Play – will be the only show left on Broadway that is not a musical.
It should be noted that this period will be very brief, as the closings that I refer to will be followed by quite a few other shows opening that same month. So this isn’t to say that this is something we can expect to last for a lengthy amount of time.
16 comments:
I find this very interesting, because it seems, at least at my high school, that musicals are what everyone strives to be a apart of. The musical always got the most attention, publication time and buzz around it because it was our"big show" or our "money maker" others would say. Although I agree that musicals often help to bring in the typical non-theatrical audience member, it is also important to remember that musicals stem from the base of the story and emotion in the script- a play.
Due to the economics of broadway it make sense that there are more musicals than plays running. Even though it cost more weekly for a musical to run, more people want to see big flashy musicals. Unless there is a big star attached to the play most plays only run a couple months on Broadway.
The author of this article is blind to the facts of what succeeds on Broadway. In an ideal world, I too would love to see more plays on Broadway and at venues where larger audiences would have access to them. I was fortunate enough to see some of the plays mentioned in the article, and thoroughly enjoyed them. Nevertheless, the audiences were not full even after the accolades from the Tony awards. While watching "THE HUMANS" I could not help but think to myself how much money all of their consumables cost each night. Running a play is expensive, and usually with little return. Box office records show that Broadway musicals are more successful monetarily compared to plays. Therefore, it makes sense that there would be more Broadway musicals would be running rather than plays. I fell in love with theatre because of the art and beauty, however, one must realize that there has to be a way to make money too. Broadway musicals make more money, and therefore, should be produced more.
Over the past few years, I think I have definitely developed more of an appreciation for straight plays. There is often, though not always, more depth in straight plays. That being said, I can see why straight plays are often limited runs or close after a somewhat short run. In musicals, people are dazzled by the lights and dancing. They listen to the music over and over at home, and they think "I have to see that again!" Plays, while having a major impact on the audience, generally do not stick in the mind as much as musicals, simply because of the music. I think plays also tend to bring in a sort of audience that is interested in "deeper" theatre, and do not necessarily rely on the razzle dazzle element that musicals bring. However, musicals bring in tourists, families, and children, in addition to normal theatregoers, making their audiences just larger in general. It is kind of sad that straight plays do not do as well and are not as successful financially, but it also makes sense. Tourists do not want to see The Humans when they come to New York, they want to see Phantom of the Opera or The Lion King.
While the title of the article caught my eye, the author failed to make any kind of convincing case for why I should care that musicals far outnumber plays on Broadway. I don't believe that play necessarily bring any different kind of message, expose audiences to any different themes, or provide designers with any different design opportunities as musicals do. Plays are also not inherently more culturally relevant or important. While the author argues that some people might not be able to relate to musicals or find appeal in them, the opposite is also true in that many people consider plays more "serious" and therefore more boring than musicals. Therefore, couldn't it be argued that musicals that breach serious topics provide a service to audience members and should therefore be supported and encouraged, instead of pointlessly rallying against musicals in general? Honestly, there are probably some valuable points to be made when talking about supporting more plays instead of musicals on Broadway, but I didn't see any in this article.
Musicals and non-musicals are meant for two different audiences. I agree with the majority here that musicals are the big, magnificent shows on Broadway that bring in crowds of tourists, soccer moms, children and, of course, money! Musicals are catchy, stay in the back of your head and before you know it, you'll be singing along a few days after you've seen it. The majority of musicals follow historical themes, romance, and for the most part--although some can be serious--musicals are fun.
Non-musicals aren't. That's not to say they can't be fun, cute, or bubbly but they tend to be more serious. They bring serious, contemporary issues to the table. To the right audience, they can spark some extremely important discourse. They might not attract enormous audiences for years to come but they aren't insignificant.
I went to Broadway for the first time last spring to go see shows with my sister in law. When we were deciding what to see once we started looking to plays, she was surprised we were looking at plays at all since she felt like if we were going to Broadway, we should see musicals. I ended up going to see The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime, and it was one of the best plays, and one of the best pieces of theater, I’ve ever seen. Later, while waiting in line for tickets I ended up recommending Curious Incident to the woman in front of me in line, and as soon as she heard it wasn’t a musical, she was no longer interested. She told me that when she goes to see shows on Broadway, she wants to see a happy musical. I don’t think there is anything wrong with my sister in law feeling like if we are bothering to go to New York, we should see musicals, as that is what Broadway is known for, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with the woman in front of me in line going to Broadway specifically for bright happy music. Though I do want there to be more plays like Curious Incident, I think the problem with trying to push for more plays on Broadway is that audiences go to Broadway for musicals, and you can’t fault people for wanting to see what they want to see, especially with how expensive tickets are. Getting more plays on Broadway would essentially require re-branding Broadway. Until people stop thinking “musical” when they hear “Broadway” there is only going to be so much room for plays. Given how established the link between Broadway and musicals currently is, it is going to take a lot of publicity and a lot of well known good plays to get more plays on Broadway.
"Musicals aren’t necessarily for everyone. I think we need to be honest about the fact that there are some potential theatergoers out there who we might not be reaching, simply on the basis that they aren’t huge fans of musical theatre, and that they perceive Broadway – and rightly so – to largely be geared toward musicals."
This is a really valid point. Whenever my mom or my aunts talk about Broadway, they always bring up Wicked and Phantom and the 'big ones'. For most people, Broadway is about big, glitzy, beautiful musicals, and Broadway has never really shied from this image... In fact, it's been embraced and 'troped' as one of the pillars of Broadway.
The better question to be asking here is less of if this is happening and more of why it's happening. Why is Broadway seen as a collection of large, extravagant musicals full of glitter and chorus lines? Maybe because for many many many people, Broadway is a huge luxury. Even dirt cheap Broadway tickets are still around 40$ a pop, and that's if you win a random lottery. That's literally 40 pieces of pizza in NYC. That's at least a week of lunch if you need to eat out every day, that's the new boots you need because you finally put a hole through the heel, that's a lot. And that's if you're going alone. And frankly, not a lot of people can shell out the 300 bucks to see whatever they want, so they go to what they are hearing buzz about, what sells the most tickets, and whichever poster they think looks good.
I also am a firm believer in people wanting to go to the arts to have fun, because the arts are so fun, and when you're trying to have a fun date night or birthday you want to go see something that is catchy and light. Most people are not invested in new or experimental theater because they are not heavily involved in the community, and ultimately theater owners are going to cater to the masses. The same masses that have kept Wicked and Phantom running (the tourists).
This article opens referencing Curious Incident – probably my favorite straight-play production that I’ve seen on Broadway – and The Humans, another very, very good work. I totally agree that non-musicals are extremely important on Broadway. Musicals, while often achieving similar motives to straight-plays, have a primary goal of entertainment. While all live theatre is a form of entertainment, non-musicals are more focused on conveying the bare story and message of the piece. While music can aid greatly in this process, it can also soften harsh themes or distract from the main point.
I appreciate that this author points out the importance of discussion – the fact that the simplest way to influence what’s on Broadway is to talk about it in the industry and public. The author also makes an interesting point about why playwrights aren’t necessarily running to Broadway, and how Broadway producers are less likely to “take a chance” on a straight play. I think it’s also important to note, however, that Broadway as a producing machine may be better geared towards producing musicals, given the big budgets a having a practice of locking a show down and running it as such. It may be possible that emerging playwrights are seeking off- or off-off-Broadway production because it allows for more experimentation and changes. Maybe this is something we should think about changing, and how.
Nonetheless, getting non-musicals produced in a setting that “the masses” can experience is very important to the development and longevity of the performing arts, and also essential in our ability to communicate important stories.
I find it kind of hilarious that the author refers to plays as "Non-Musicals". The author is making an argument about the lack of straight acting on the broadway stage right now, however, the way this website presents it completely feeds into the idea that theatre is centric around musicals. Now I will admit that I find myself sitting in the audience ready to see my favorite performers sing power-ballads way more than I am ready to see a straight play but that is largely to do with the type of publicity revolving around musicals. Wether we like it or not, people come to see commercial theater because they want to be entertained rather than challenged. Big flashy musical numbers on a multimillion dollar set is a lot easier for tourists to enjoy rather than something like August Osage County. I do believe that with the right publicity any show can be wildly successful such as the Macbeth revival with Alan Cumming or Elephant Man with Bradley Cooper. Now I will admit the best thing I've ever seen on broadway happens to be a straight play--- Curious Incident was one of the most thought-out productions I have ever seen. It was completely innovative with its scenery and projections but it was not reliant on them (they did autism friendly performances once a month with condensed technical aspects). In closing, I understand what the author is saying and I agree with them but I think that with good publicity and a good team any show has potential to have a successful broadway run.
As a theatre goer who enjoys musicals, I never really thought much about the problem that this article brings up. I agree with what the author says about how musicals aren't for everyone, but I think that the problem is a majority of people do like them. I mean think about who is going to see broadway shows, unless you are local, you most likely are a tourist and someone who sees a broadway show for the novelty of it. To a lot of people who aren't fully invested in the theatre world, musicals are possibly more entertaining. The more people who go see broadway shows, the more money the show will make and the longer it will run. I think that is the root of the problem. I think that if we were to give more straight plays a chance on broadway, we could change the tourists preference and maybe even their idea of theatre. We will broaden their enjoyment of theatre from not just entertaining musicals, but also thought-provoking, emotionally moving pieces of straight theatre. Broadway is supposed to be the place where the best theatre is shown, and the best theatre does not just come in the form of musicals.
I would like to begin by saying that I am not someone who is well-versed in the theater, a statement which may make me sound naive, but also may add some flavor to my words, as they are from an outsider looking in.
As someone whose first real experience of New York and Broadway occurred over this most recent summer (of '16), I find this article particularly intriguing. When I first explored Broadway, and when I sat entranced as a Something Rotten! audience member across two performances, I felt inclined to believe that Broadway is naturally dominated by musicals. So, this article pushes me to think of all the plays I have studied that are seemingly not as revered by Broadway as those produced with song and dance. Your comment made regarding The Lion King was even more thought-provoking for me, as I recalled some future Broadway productions of non-musicals-turned-musical, such as Frozen (though it has a soundtrack, it originated on film, not on the stage) and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. My question is - will these new performances also turn into second-time flops? Or will they prove that the modern-day flip towards musicals is actually one that holds merit? I suppose we will just have to wait and find out.
I agree that all I really see on the news surrounding Broadway are musicals, and I understand the concern and discontent the author feels about certain plays and playwrights not receiving enough audience or recognition, but you still can’t deny the fact that musicals make money.
Broadway – probably always has been – is a fast track for infamy in musical theatre. The minute a show catches the eye of the public as being “catchy, funny, or just plain brilliant” ticket prices soar into the hundreds and the house still fills on a regular basis.
My issue with musicals dominating Broadway is from being in drama school and working for summer theatres that don’t do all the famous hits all the time is that nobody ever knows what I’m working on and is far less enthusiastic about plays – even though some of them are brilliant. I constantly have family members asking me what I’m working on and then immediately after being told “eh, just tell me when the musical is happening”. If plays got more main stream publicity – namely Broadway – theatre would be a more diverse and interesting pastime/entertainment.
I 100% agree that plays are just as important as musicals, but from my personal experience I definitely prefer watching plays in a more intimate setting (smaller venue, round seating, etc) rather than on a big stage. Because non-musicals don't have the exciting songs and dances, it can be easy for audiences sitting far away to disengage themselves or fall asleep. However, I've noticed that musicals with big spectacles are harder to stir a strong emotional response for me, whereas non-musicals definitely stir a greater and stronger emotional response or meaningful discussion after the show. I can definitely see why such a big commercial theatre platform like Broadway would put up more musicals than non-musicals, given how regular audiences would prefer a happy musical over an experimental play. For instance, I was on run crew for the CMU production of Lord of the Flies last year and some audiences left during intermission because they weren't used to what was on stage. That being said, I definitely think there should be more plays on Broadway just because that's also a very valuable theater experience it's just as important as musicals.
It's one thing to say "Broadway needs more musicals." That's a fine thought. That thought, however, does nothing to change the minds of producers and wallets of patrons. If you want to see great plays in New York, there are plenty of them off-Broadway. No producer, given the choice, is going to put a play up on Broadway over a musical unless they are sure that play can sell more tickets. Due to the preference of theater-goers for big musicals, it's understandable that this phenomenon occurs rarely. The words "Broadway" and "musical," I would argue, go hand in hand. You go to Broadway to see a show. Usually, a musical. Personally, I would love for a larger interest in straight plays on Broadway. However, I don't think that will happen any time soon. Plays are often more serious and take more work and attention on the part of the audience. Musicals, on the other hand, are (generally) easier to watch, since there isn't as much complicated dialogue. Of course, there are always exceptions. Nonetheless, there is an overwhelming majority of musicals on Broadway because that's what audiences want to see.
I do agree with this article in the sense that musicals are not everyone’s preference, but a lot of people do enjoy musicals. In order to attract an audience other than theatre goers, theatres try to produce something that everyone will know, in this case Lion King, Phantom of the Opera and at this point Hamilton. There are also some musicals that need to stay up for a long time due to the demand that ticket sales go. I hope that Hamilton does not leave Broadway anytime soon because I do not know when I will be able to see it. I also think that the “average” audience member would prefer to see a show with music rather than a straight play. I am not saying that straight plays are boring or not as interesting as musicals, just that people who do not know much about theatre would rather see something other than straight talking for two hours. I do wish that there was more credit given to plays because they are beautiful, I just think that musicals are very important to keeping Broadway alive and non-theatre geeks coming.
Post a Comment