Wall Street Journal Questions Necessity of Previews; BroadwayWorld Quoted

[Rob]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 9:51pm

Click Here to Read Wall Street Journal Questions Necessity of Previews; BroadwayWorld Quoted

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 10:53pm

Very interesting. It is a shame more shows don't lower prices for unfinished works during the preview period. There is a play in previews right now that I know for a fact isn't even finished being written because the playwright is not happy with what's being put on the stage each night. After seeing this show last week and learning that fact afterwards, I became very upset because I felt almost like I was cheated. It's ridiculous to put something on stage that you either know isn't finished or ready to be seen and to charge top dollar for that production. It just shouldn't happen.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/21/10 at 11:21pm

M. Short is randomly hyperlinked in the middle of the article.

Unless it's an out of town tryout, I think the amount of change made between previews and opening on Broadway these days is so negligible that it's not worthy of a discount.

[sweetTb'way]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 12:35am

Bottom line, if the full price or the fact that you may be seeing something less than a final product is a concern to you, don't go to a PREVIEW. It's not as if they're trying to hide the fact that it's a PREVIEW. Find out when the show opens and go after that.

I'm all for the lower pricing during previews but if I attend a show in previews, I know to expect anything.

[noplain]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 3:17am

When The Rain Stops Falling has its US debut off-Broadway this year, after a preview period of 28 performances. At its World Premiere at the 2008 Adelaide Festival of The Arts it played 24 shows total, and I think three or four of those were preview performances. This was then a brand new script, never before performed anywhere, and they used just three or four previews; when it performs in New York it will be it's fifth city and third production. I can't see that it could be performed with lots of technical aspects which need work, so why such a long preview period?


Updated On: 1/22/10 at 03:17 AM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 8:16am

The only time I have ever gone to see a show i previews was MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG in October 1981. After that I vowed to stay away until after opening night. (As a reviewer I feel a professional obligation to not cover shows until they are officially opened.)

With MERRILY the producers advertised previews at lower prices: $25 weeknights, $28 Saturday nights. After the original scheduled opening (Nov 1, 1981) prices jumped to $30 weeknights and $35 on Saturday nights. (I recently found the full page NY Times ad in a box of memorabilia.) The show ran into problems and the opening was postponed to Nov 8 and the to Nov 16. But the higher prices still kicked in on Nov 1. Still for those first 3 weeks of previews tickets were 20% less. Imagine that discount at today's prices.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 9:53am

"Unless it's an out of town tryout, I think the amount of change made between previews and opening on Broadway these days is so negligible that it's not worthy of a discount."

Orangeskittles- This is definitely not always true, especially in regards to musicals. Take "13" for example. Even with two out-of-town tryouts it changed DRASTICALLY from the frist preview to opening night. It went from two acts to one, cut several songs and had many cuts in the book.

"Cry-Baby," which also had an out-of-town tryout, had numerous cut and/or replaced numbers. At the first preview Harriet Harris even had to sing her number without any orchestrations.

"13" and "Cry-Baby" may be extreme examples, but I think it's more often than not that a musical will change something big (replace a song, cut a book scene) during the preview period.

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 1:29pm

It is sad that the people involved in setting ticket prices have forgotten what a preview period is and why it is there. Unfortunately, they are only thinking of the top dollar for audience members who have no idea what previews are. I know I've had to explain it countless times to friends who only see a show once or twice a year, if that.
Personally, I try not to attend previews. Especially when the ticket prices don't reflect a preview period. But I think the ticket prices should be lowered for previews, and even a quick announcement before the start of the show saying that it is a work in progress would be nice (a few out of town tryouts do that). Theatre is still a word of mouth venture whether it is person to person, or on the internet, and I would think that producers, et. al. would want people talking about their show. Of course, this is if they believe in the product they are presenting. Because, as we all know, word of mouth can keep a show open even if the critics don't like it all that much.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 1:48pm

Good article. I can now say that I was interviewed for the article. Only part of what I posted here was included.

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 2:42pm

frontrowcentre2, could you possibly post that New York Times ad for Merrily? I would love to see it!

[morosco]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 2:58pm

A theatergoer who attended a preview of "A Little Night Music...noticed Ms. Lansbury briefly adding "la la las" where her lyrics should have been in the song "The Glamorous Life"

But there are "la la las" in the lyrics, right?

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 3:00pm

^ Yes. I was there. Angela forgot the lyrics of her solo part "ordinary daughters..." etc. She substituted "la la las" and other syllables for the forgotten lyrics.
And she called Desiree "Fredrika" not "Fredrik" as the article states. But she corrected herself. She said "Fredrika, or Desiree rather...."

Updated On: 1/22/10 at 03:00 PM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 3:27pm

InfiniteTheaterFrenzy: I do not own a scanner, so I can't really help you there. It is the same logo as used in your avatar, with a banner across the bottom announcing "Box Office Opens Today at 12 Noon - Lower Priced Previews" and then giving all the details of ticket prices, the phone number to call etc.

The phone number is for a long gone service called Chargit. The problem was that in 1981 box offices were not fully computerized, so Chargit was just given certain blocks of tickets to sell. I was trying to score Saturday night seats for the final week of previews: Saturday October 24. Chargit kept saying the show was sold out. The box office kept saying they had plenty of tickets. Finally I did mail order and got 6 seats, Row N 101-106. We were so excited... and then about 15 minutes into the show one of my friends whispered in my ear "This is AWFUL!!" After intermission there were a few more empty seats but during "It's a Hit" there must have been more than 100 walk outs.

Here I was loving the score but frustrated that while individual scenes were playing well, the whole show just wasn't taking root. The next day we met Stephen Sondheim and he told us they were making a lot of changes. I went back to see the show again a few nights later and a lot of changes had been made, all for the immensely worse. But the cast album - when it FINALLY came out the following April was and is a source of endless delight.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/22/10 at 4:30pm

I listen to "Merrily..." at least 3 or 4 times a week.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/24/10 at 11:39am

It's a regular in my CD player as well.

MERRILY was an early example of the danger of previewing in New York. we didn't had BWW then (Oh that would have been fun!)but the poisonous word-of-mouth on streets was just as bad if not worse...rumours abounded the show would close in previews, or that Sondheim and Prince were going to take if off and tinker and reopen in the spring.

Liz Smith (the precursor to Michael Reidel as the Broadway gossip maven)wrote a whole column for the paper called "Not So Merrily they Roll out of the Theatre" where she interviewed people walking out of early previews and got some deliciously bitchy quotes.

The real venom was reserved for Sondheim's score. Everyone it seemed hated it. it was too much like GYPSY, too traditional, and too geared to the adult pop market (with pre-opening records by Carly Simon and Frank Sinatra.) I thought it was brilliant, echoing the Broadway styles of the 60's (Now You Know) and 50's (Our Time) but remaining pure Sondheim. I loved how everything in the score connected. And NOT ONE CRITIC picked up on any of this. Later when the cast album came out they all reversed themselves and claimed that it was a wonderful score let down by a horrid production.

Truth was that this show would have benefited a great deal from an out-of-tune try-out or regional staging prior to Broadway. Which is why for his next show Sondheim ventured off-Broadway at first.