JERUSALEM begins April 2 at the Music Box- Page 2

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 1:18pm

Jerusalem may or may not be a great show (I can't comment since I've never seen it). However, am I the only one who thinks it's a little silly to transfer this to Broadway after La Bete with Mark Rylance had to close early? Virtually no plays survive without celebrities attached, and Mark Rylance just proved he does not have marquee value even with the help of David Hyde Pierce. I wish this show the best of luck, but I fail to see the investment merit in getting behind such a production.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 2:42pm

Rylance was the raison d'être for Boeing-Boeing, which was a critical and commercial hit. I don't think the fact that La Bête was not a success is an indication that audiences wouldn't turn out to see Rylance deliver what is being described as a once-in-a-lifetime performance in a critically acclaimed new play.

[vegas2]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 3:14pm

I saw Jerusalem at the Trafalgar Studios before its West End transfer. Mark Rylance is amazing, and the play itself is utterly compelling. It runs a bit long, but I would find it hard to cut anything. I'm not a Brit, but the Englishness of the play didn't bother me at all. There is something universal in its themes. The ending is really powerful. Even if you hated La Bete, you must see Jerusalem. And the contrast between Rylance's performances in the two plays reveals just what a gifted performer he is. It's hard to believe you are watching the same person. I am looking forward to seeing the show a second time. I believe Rylance will be the front-runner for the Tony.

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 3:33pm

Smaxie, Boeing-Boeing was a success and it did recoup. However, I'm not sure I'd call it a hit. The average ticket prices / capacity weren't extraordinarily high, but enough to make a little profit. I produce Broadway shows, and can tell you that a lot of people are staying away from this because of La Bete. At the moment, I think it's pretty much proven fact that Mark Rylance is not a box office draw for the masses. Boeing Boeing may have done well, because the show was a great piece of theater. Jerusalem may find the same fate. I was only saying that staging a play without a major celebrity is incredibly risky, as most plays don't fit into the August: Osage County category.

[Mark_E]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 3:47pm

"I saw Jerusalem at the Trafalgar Studios before its West End transfer."

Think you mean Royal Court :P.

And plays which have succeeded without star power - Red!

[vegas2]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 4:25pm

Oops . . . Right you are, Mark_E. It was the Royal Court. I saw so many shows that summer it's all a blur. But Jerusalem was the best. I sure hope it founds an audience in the U.S.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 4:37pm

I think it's only fair to call Boeing-Boeing a hit - recouping and making a small profit is hit enough, when most shows don't even do that.

No, Mark Rylance's name will not mean Julia Roberts or Denzel Washington-sized numbers at the box office. But I think his performance in this play will be the talk of Broadway this spring.

As far as investors, well, I'm sure there are plenty of other low-risk, artistically bankrupt projects this spring for the bored and moneyed Upper East Side ladies to put their dollars behind. I'll be grateful for the ones who are investing in Jerusalem and taking the greater artistic risk and making Broadway more interesting as a result.

Updated On: 12/21/10 at 04:37 PM

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 5:13pm

Financially speaking, Fences was a hit. Boeing-Boeing was above average (if the benchmark for average is not recouping your capitalization). My only concern for Jerusalem is that because there are so many celebrity driven shows this spring, it may get lost in the crowd. But time will tell... Funny though that you commend investors for taking a risk in Jerusalem, while so many others tear Spider-Man to shreds, when it's one of the most complex and innovative shows of all time.
Updated On: 12/21/10 at 05:13 PM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 5:28pm

Not everything can or needs to be a Fences-sized hit to be called a hit. A modest hit like Boeing-Boeing is still a hit, at least in the Variety model.

Ben Stiller, Edie Falco, Chris Rock, Robin Williams, Daniel Radcliffe, Kiefer Sutherland strike me as the spring's Broadway celebrities - but it is left to be seen if any of them deliver Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts or Hugh Jackman-sized advances.

I've steered clear of Spider-Man conversation, except to say if someone wants to give Julie Taymor $65 million, it's none of my business and she can do what she wants with it.

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 5:42pm

The Spider-Man comment wasn't really steered towards you. More of my general astonishment of so many ripping the show down. Your comment about risk taking just made me think. And we can argue all day about what's a hit, but as an investor/producer you want to make the most money on your investment. I'd always prefer a Fences over a Boeing-Boeing. Definitions can be interpreted however you choose, but realistically speaking Boeing-Boeing didn't make huge profit. Time will tell, but I'd wager that House of Blue Leaves, Hat, Championship Season and H2$ will all preform at better numbers than Jerusalem. I think Bengal Tiger is yet to be seen.

[MikeySD]

Posted: 1/9/11 at 11:51pm

How are the sight lines in this theater from the side?

Will I be able to see anything without turning my head all the way to the side?

I'm looking to buy tickets to JERUSALEM and everything center is, well, not available.

Thanks!

Michael

[willep]

Posted: 1/10/11 at 12:27am

If I recall, EQUUS with Daniel Radcliffe and Richard Griffiths didn't have stellar numbers.