OnStage: It was announced in the last few days that Sara Bareilles will be replacing Jesse Mueller in Waitress on Broadway. This was followed up by what has become a very predictable set of reactions from 4 mainstream groups. Group #1 rolls their eyes. Group #2 consists of the celebrity fans who are ecstatic for their idol. Group #3 contains the angry aspiring musical theatre performers who are ticked off that yet another not-necessarily-a-good-performer-star has “stolen” a role from one of them. And Group #4 consists of the Broadway businessmen who could each buy a Central Park West Penthouse with the money this will make them. I’m going to speak mainly to Groups 1 and 3, and give you the reasons we should celebrate celebrities on Broadway.
11 comments:
First off I think they should have incorporated other celebrities joining shows. The Last Ship had Sting in it. Many shows do “star casting” to sell tickets. Yes, there are hundreds of actors and actress who probably would be better than said celebrity. But if a show closes so many people lose their jobs. If one part is star casting and the show is able to stay open for an extra two months. That’s two months extra of insurance week and pay checks. Another good point this article made was that if a show makes enough money to fund their next project more jobs are created. In an industry where jobs are so hard to find I would think this would make people happy. Also they talked about how new audiences are coming to see the shows. Don’t we want new and younger audiences to come and see theater? The business side of me is all for the star casting.
Personally, I hate that theatre stars are no longer known in the public eye like they used to be. It’s such an odd thing, the mass public know movie stars and music stars. Film stars make sense because their faces are plastered everywhere. But why are pop stars more popular than Broadway stars? Both mainly perform live, so their personalities are not as widely dispersed. Is it because bands go on tour and have ore face time with their fans, whereas Broadway stars are more confined to one region of the country? I’m hoping that with the recent resurgence of celebrities coming on to Broadway shows that those shows will gain more popularity. But something tells me that as soon as the celebrity leaves the show no one will care about it again. I’ve heard Kelly Clarkson’s cover of “It’s Quiet Uptown” on the radio, and never is it said that it’s from the show Hamilton, mainly the announcers say the song belongs to Kelly Clarkson. What? Why was it never mentioned that the song came from Hamilton? How can celebrities crap on the very pieces that are making them more famous in the public eye?
Ah yes, the eternal struggle of satisfying the theatergoers against the theatre community. I am of a similar mindset as the writer of the article. Although I'd rather hear nails on a chalkboard than have to sit through The Addams Family with Brooke Shields again, I have to agree that I would like to see Broadway continue to prosper. Sadly, that means baring through the 101 celebrity Roxie Harts in order to continue to employ another 15 years worth of ensemble members. In a beautiful world, art would be high-budget and low-cost to audience members. However, it comes down to numbers, particularly on Broadway, and sometimes you have to give them what they want in order to be able to produce something you want. I often find this true in regional theatres too. A production company has to do their annual A Christmas Carol to be able to afford their Eugene Ionesco piece at the end of the season. It's unfortunate but you know what they say...they call it show business for a reason.
First off, I completely agree with Garrison’s assessment of the situation, but I can’t help but wonder why he wrote this article. I know for a fact that many people share this belief, which I why I’m partially surprised that a criminal law major was the person tasked to write this article. Why not someone from the theater industry? At the bottom of the article is says that Garrison is a criminal and constitutional law major at Seattle University Law School. I’m not saying that Garrison can not enjoy theater and should not be able to write about it, but I think I would have been more convinced of the article if the author's credentials matched the topic. For example, would you be convinced by an opinion piece I wrote about criminal law, even if I had done research? However, this articles target demographic is most likely people who agree with Garrison, so this credentials are not an important factor as he does not need to convince his readers.
I understand the points made in the article, but I do have to mention what Rebecca pointed out as well. I can't help but trivialize his opinion in this article because he isn't in our industry. As someone going to drama school, I'm not going to post my view on the latest medical technology because, quite frankly, it isn't my place and I don't know enough about it. Perhaps I would have valued the content in this article a bit more if it had come from a more authentic source in relation to the industry it's trying to talk about. That being said, I do comprehend the general intentions trying to be set here, that shows on Broadway sometimes need to bring in a big name celebrities to keep its doors open. In the case of shows like Sara Bareilles in Waitress or the previously mentioned Sting in The Last Ship, I feel like this can be slightly a bit more forgivable considering the fact that they wrote the music for the show, but when looking at other shows, especially all the Roxies in Chicago, it can be annoying to see our art go to the waste of just cheap thrills.
I completely understand the message that the author is trying to get across. Theatre is a business (especially Broadway) and one way to improve business is to bring in a celebrity simply because their name will sell tickets. Sometimes these celebrities are very good and sometimes they are not that qualified. I can understand as well, the people who are upset that their name got them to the top fast than the hard work of very talented performers. While this is a fast way for a theatre to make a lot of money, I don't think it's the only way. The grand scale of Broadway is a staple of new York and itself alone has enough star power to bring in audiences. The author does bring up a good point on how the celebrity will bring in new audience and those new audience will potentially stay. So overall, both sides have valid points.
I agree that casting a celebrity can attract audiences, sell tickets, and keep a show going. But the author of this article also references a “new generation of theatre geeks.” I don’t know about that. Rebecca noted that this is a law student, which does mean that he isn’t an authority on this topic, but the way he writes, he clearly falls into the theatre geek category. I think that makes him even more biased. He is a theatre geek that’s a patron, not a professional. (Which is awesome and extremely important.) But getting people in the door once doesn’t mean they will fall in love with theatre as he did. How many people buy tickets for one show because of a celebrity and become a theatre lover? How many continue to buy tickets to see celebrities they know? And how many just see that one show? The ticket sales are there regardless, so in some sense it doesn’t matter. But the author hasn’t provided any evidence that casting celebrities is somehow creating this “new generation,” not just money and publicity.
I'm really glad this topic made it on here, and I think that this is a really interesting topic to discuss. While OnStage Blog is not the best and most reliable source, the author, who is not a theatre person, does make some good points and has an interesting opinion. In my personal opinion, it is upsetting that this is all that sells on Broadway, but this is not a new thing, as the author implies. This type of marketing has been around for years; Broadway is notorious for using celebrities to sell shows--look at Evelyn Nesbit, to name just one. In the modern age, it's a bit different, since it's reality stars, football players, former 90s girl group stars, and others, but it's essentially the same idea. While I disagree with this trend, as I'd love to see Broadway shows sell out solely for their content and quality, not for the famous pop music stars in them, Broadway is after all a commercial business. As much as we wish for Broadway to be the most creative and innovative hub of theatre that we all dream of, it's never going to happen. In the words of @offstagejobs on twitter a few years back, "Broadway is a marketing term, theatre is everywhere."
I get confused when people make comments like “why aren’t Broadway stars famous anymore?” Honestly, I find the answer to be simple… so much of the fame is focused on the movie stars and other people that are seen by a much larger group of people. In order to get recognition, you need to be noticed. I am not saying Broadway stars are not extremely talented, most would stay they are the amount the best. That being said, if you bring in a big name like Sara Bareilles, you can bet your bottom dollar that ticket price will explode. This is the great thing about Broadway, you can only fit as many people as the auditorium can support, making ticket demand huge. At the end of the day Broadway is a business meant for making money and sometimes these tough calls need to be made. So if I was in the same situation of whether or not to pull Jesse Mueller I would not have hesitated to do it.
The only reason I care on why a person new to Broadway walks through the theater door is when they don't come back. That is why I'm so conflicted with celebrity stars headlining new Broadway shows. Too often people fly halfway across the country to see their favorite singer or actor in a new show, then don't stick around to see what else lies in the theaters around them. I understand that this can be because Broadway, with its high prices and exclusive location, can be very elusive to many people, but this isn't the case I'm talking about. I'm talking about those who come for the star and disregard all else because they don't know the name on the marquee. I appreciate that these people fuel the theater cycle and give money that can go to other shows and future productions, but I don't appreciate that the same things stay open for ages while better art barely lasts a season. When Hamilton blew up, show after show closed because they couldn't keep up, and yes Hamilton is amazing, it is really good art, but other things are too and instead of trying for those when they lost the lottery, people just went home. What friend from back home is going to care if you saw Tuck Everlasting anyway.
I mean yeah. I've always found it really fascinating how nonexistent theatre is to the general population. With the recent popularity of Hamilton, I've always been very surprised with people know who Lin Manuel-Miranda is, because I'm so used to people not knowing Broadway stars no matter how popular their show is. I don't know if I really think that's a bad thing though. Yes a lot of people see shows because their favorite mediocre celebrity is in it, but there are still plenty of people that see shows to see shows. I'm not really mad about Sara Bareilles starring in Waitress since 1. She's a singer so she's gonna at least sound good and 2. She wrote the damn thing. In cases like these I think the songwriters want a chance to sing their music for a live audience (see also: Billie Joe Armstrong in American Idiot). I wasn't really under the impression that Waitress was hurting for ticket sales, since last I checked I still couldn't get a ticket. I'm not saying stunt casting isn't super annoying (@Chicago) but I don't think it's the end of the world or indicative of the end of theatre or anything. I think LMM has helped bridge the gap between Broadway star and celebrity at least a TINY bit. I think a fair amount of people know who he and like Daveed Diggs are, though they may continue to never know that Idina Menzel originated the role of Elphaba in Wicked. But I mean oh well.
Post a Comment