Why Don't Shows Try Out in Boston Anymore?

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:26pm

A friend recently commented, when visiting Boston, that their "theatre row" was a ghost town. Why is Boston no longer the go to city for an out of town tryout?

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:27pm

I think it's possible that producers want to try-out a show in a city that is a lot farther away from New York.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:29pm

With the internet does it really matter? A show could try out in Antarctica and someone would be blogging about it within hours. I think it's more complicated than that. There are beautiful theatres there that are staying empty. Are the audiences gone?

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:36pm

^ Maybe the feel that there are plenty of beautiful theatres in Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, Miami, LA, San Francisco, and Toronto are 'staying empty'.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:40pm

Um, Seattle has two theatres that shows can try out in. Two.

[philly03]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:41pm

..and Sarasota and Tampa !

I never understood how Boston and Philadelphia went from huge theatre towns to .. not so anymore. Still lots of thriving regional stuff, but nothing that is major/Broadway-bound anymore.

Philly's got a beautiful theatre that is pretty much sitting empty except the tours that stick around for a long while (the Forrest), the Walnut which independently puts on it's own stuff/S. Sondheim is on the board/trustees believe it or not, and then the big touring house The Academy of Music, amongst countless other theatres!

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:45pm

I personally think it is better for a show to try-out somewhere that isn't so close to New York. I feel that trying out a show on the other side of the country gives a show a taste of two different parts of America, thus making it more polished. Sure, that's not to say that Boston isn't drastically different from New York, but it's more of a 'culture-shock' when it's Coral Gables Vs. New York compared to Boston to New York. Just my .02

[Eris0303]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:51pm

My first professional show was at the Forrest.

I think some of it has to do with the fact that it's so much easier to take a whole cast to someplace like Seattle or Denver. Once upon a time Philadelphia and Boston were the only viable options because of the transportation system. Most people had to travel by train and taking an entire company across country via train was expensive and tedious. Now, its much easier.

Theatres all over the country are making themselves attractive to producers for out of town tryouts and part of it must be the fact that they're taking Broadway to people who may never get to Broadway.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:53pm

^ would like to add that it is nice to see cities with less accessibility to NYC get shows before everyone in the big apple.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 8:56pm

Toronto used to get a ton of pre-Broadway runs and great sit-down productions. They have dried up. For years, Toronto was a theatre ghost town. It is starting to pick up now with some of the tours, giving Toronto longer runs. However, Toronto still has its fair share of bad musicals that get comfortable for a little too long.

Chicago now seems to be the epicenter of try-outs.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:02pm

Professional theatres died in those old-try-out cities when theatre died in those old try-out cities.

The only place theatre has any relevance in this country is about twelve blocks in Manhattan and that's the sad truth of society and shows how much culture can change in forty years.

P

[philly03]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:03pm

I'd rather, honestly, have a production come out with so-so reviews from somewhere like Philadelphia, as opposed to getting entire raves from somewhere like Sarasota. Not to pick on Tale, as I loved it .. but I'd still would have liked to see if they had gotten the Broadway reviews for out of town they may have been able to pump up the production a little differently.

[BrianS]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:11pm

Jazz is right. While the internet does make it difficult to work on a new piece without each change being discussed day-to-day, having your out-of-town further away from NY just cuts down a lot on "industry people" (a very general term to be sure) making a day trip and seeing a work in progress. Not sure how it is these days, but when Boston and Philly WERE the out-of-town scene, further theaters offered better deals as incentive.

Even with the out-of-towns further away, there just seems to be a tonal shift where the gossips really don't give a show room to breathe and find its feet they way they used to. If you aren't in really good shape out of the gate, there seems to be a surplus of people who get waaay too excited with the vitriol. "worst. show. ever!!!" that kind of thing.

Not that that would ever happen on these boards where people maintain moderated and respectful dialogues. :)

[Smaxie]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:14pm

"Why Don't Shows Try Out In Boston Anymore?"

Isn't that the name of Val's introspective ballad in Henry, Sweet Henry?

Updated On: 7/8/09 at 09:14 PM

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:31pm

In the old days, producers would simply book one of the theaters in Philadelphia, New Haven, Boston, etc. the same way they would be booking their Broadway home.

But now, you have subscription-based theaters in many citys across the country that are eager for new product, and that "prior to Broadway" cache. Seattle's 5th Avenue Theatre is a perfect example. I'm not privvy to any of the financial arrangements, but I have to believe that CATCH ME IF YOU CAN saves a lot of money being on their subscription season - theater rental, rehearsal costs, weekly operating costs, etc.

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:37pm

Smaxie, if this were Facebook I would "Like" your comment.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:45pm

Being from Boston, I'd love to see more shows try out here. Sly Fox did a few years ago and was very successful. It was at the Shubert, a little gem of a theater which is woefully underutilized. Last year - or was it two years ago? - we were supposed to get Nice Work If You Can Get It with Harry Connick Jr. but that died on the vine.

I wonder if part of the problem is the cost. Real estate, labor and housing in Boston are pretty high. And the big theaters are run by outfits like Broadway Across America that book a lot of tours. So maybe there aren't enough consecutive free weeks to host a lengthy tryout.

I think another problem is the decline in arts coverage. There isn't one good, well respected critic left in the city. The Globe and Herald are a joke compared to the old days of Kevin Kelly and Elliot Norton. Joyce Kulhawik, the last TV critic, is gone from WBZ. And Carolyn Clay got the ax after 30 years at the Phoenix. Very sad.

On the positive side, there are great regional theater companies doing very exciting work. SpeakEasy, Lyric Stage, New Rep, Orfeo, the Huntington, ART, Stoneham Theatre, Reagle Players - I know I'm probably forgetting some. The Boston Center for the Arts at the Calderwood Pavilion on Tremont Street is bustling all the time.

[dg22894]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:48pm

i think some should try out in detroit

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:49pm

I wish shows would try-out in my city, but a 3 night show can barely keep a half full house in my town.

[singer73192]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 9:49pm

Ya, I live right outside of New Haven and always wished that I could have seen New Haven theatre in its prime. Currently we get nothing except for a tour or two, but wish it was still a big out of town try out location.

[Brick]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 10:02pm

What are you people talking about?!

Shows still rarely open "cold" on B'way. San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, Los Angeles, among others are very big try-out towns, with an average of at least one try-out a year in each.

The question is why Boston stopped being a place to try-out.

I think the distance question is possible: that producers FEEL the west coast is farther, so they feel more protected. And yes, because of the internet, this is completely false.

[proptart101]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 10:10pm

Boston is too expensive.

Everything from being a tier one per diem town to theater rentals, labor costs, hotel/housing expenses make Boston a difficult city to sit and do production in -

Not to mention that of the three large theaters (Wang, Colonial, Shubert) only the Wang has anything resembling offstage space (very useful when doing production) and that place is booked so solidly that there is no advantage to the venue to rent it out for a production that will not bring in paying customers for a month or more.

Ideally a production theater should be a large venue with plenty of wing space, in a mid-sized town that happens to have inexpensive yet fabulously talented local crews, decent access to technical gear, and a not so hostile press.

Any suggestions?

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 10:29pm

Wow, I had no idea that theatres in my own home state's capital city had so little wingspace.

[winston89]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 10:29pm

Don't forget that The Opera House is another theatre in Boston that can easily be used for big out of town try outs.

But, I do think that it is false to say that no show tries out in Boston anymore. Both High Fidelity and The 39 Steps played Boston before coming to New York.

I do think that it sort of has to do with perception. Yes, with the internet it doesn't matter where a show is going to have its out of town try out due to the fact that as soon as the curtain comes down on the first performance, someone is going to be online writing about it.

But, I do wonder one thing. Are theatre industry insiders more likely to hop a flight to the west coast to see a show out of town and see how it is doing or just wait for it to get to Broadway where it would be less expensive for them to see considering the fact that it is playing in their home city?

If that is the case then I could see the plus side in opening out of town further from New York. Yes, people are going to see it and blog about it online but if it has more control over the people who are going to see it who work in the theatre industry then I can see the plus side in doing it. It isn't a matter of anyone seeing it or writing about it online more of the fact that it controls who does get to see it.

[raker]

Posted: 7/8/09 at 10:40pm

I didn't know they'd canned Carolyn Clay. What a shame. She's a good critic.

I saw My One and Only during its Boston tryout. It was such a shambles, Tommy Tune stepped forward after the bows to apologize to the audience for what we'd just witnessed and to thank us Bostonians for being there to help them work on their shows before going to New York. I remember thinking, it would have been thoughtful of them to have staged the show before bringing it to Boston and selling top-priced tickets.