Black box space on Broadway- Page 2

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 1:40pm

E.Davis... For me, the tent wasn't the draw... it was the atmosphere created by the environment. I think Natasha would be just fine in a space that when you enter opens into the bar that they created. In addition, with the Broadway branding, it might not be overlooked by so many tourists visiting New York who want to see a "Broadway" show.

Also, mjohnson2's ideas for environmental / immersive productions such as Pippin, etc. would be more likely to happen if there was readily available space to accommodate them.

With this in mind, I think the multi-use complex idea with perhaps more than one such space (what happens when the only black box space is booked with a long run?) is a good one. What would The Public be if it was located in mid-town and branded, "Broadway"?

(Please understand that I adore The Public and like it just the way it is. I am not suggesting that it move. I am suggesting that a center for the Broadway performing arts with some flexible spaces would be really exciting and open up the Broadway offering.)

As for practical... There is so much that isn't practical that does get built and succeeds and perhaps even more that doesn't. This wasn't about "practical". This was about a possible direction for the future of Broadway producing.

Updated On: 12/18/13 at 01:40 PM

[E.Davis]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 1:54pm

I still think that you have the idea that Broadway and Off-Broadway are streets/areas. Also the Public has spaces that are all less than 300 seats, thus disqualifying it as being considered as a Broadway House if it were located farther uptown. It is not the job of the city to make these spaces, it is the job of the producers and companies to get creative like Natasha or Punchdrunk did.

Updated On: 12/18/13 at 01:54 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 1:57pm

Stop being so nasty, E.Davis!

[E.Davis]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 2:02pm

I can't help it.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 2:05pm

I remember, not too long ago, a 42 Street that was mostly sex shops and second rate / run movie theaters. Then came Disney.

To write that my suggestions are unlikely is perhaps wise, to write that they are impossible is simply close minded. Much stranger and even grander projects have happened.

Several threads here - like most of the "dream casting" - are not going to ever happen. So what? That wasn't the intention of this thread. I started this thread because I wanted to discuss this possibility with a theater-minded group of people. Nothing more.

I don't think opinions other than my own are intrinsically "negative". I do think being rude is unnecessary. If you don't like the thread, don't read it. If you disagree with a point made within the thread, offer your opinion. I'd like to believe this is possible without offending those with different ideas than your own.

* * *

Actually, this is just like the comments about what is and isn't possible. After following this forum for years (don't be fooled by my join date, it is wrong) one could assume civility is impossible here. Then, without any warning, someone writes you a kind comment. Perhaps, what you believed "impossible" is in fact, "possible".

[E.Davis]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 2:08pm

And so the true agenda is revealed.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 2:10pm

E.Davis... I'm not sure what I'm typing is fueling your belief that I don't understand the distinction between Broadway the Avenue vs. Broadway a series of union contracts? Trust me, having had several Broadway and Off-Broadway contracts I get the difference.

What I am trying to distinguish is Broadway, the brand. Perhaps, one can argue that there is more than one Broadway brand, but for the purposes of this thread, I am typing about the perception of a performance experience that is believed to be "Broadway".

I also believe this perception happens based on many factors. One of them is Broadway the Avenue, another is Broadway the production values (can be very varied), Broadway the marketing, etc. Many of these factors happen when a production is built starting with a Broadway union contract. I do get it. Honest.

Updated On: 12/18/13 at 02:10 PM

[E.Davis]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 2:29pm

Then maybe you should take this idea and bring it somewhere it can make a difference and not on some message board on the internet. I admire your passion but putting it hear with people who really cannot do a thing to help, is not going to get it done.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 2:33pm

E.Davis... interesting post. So many of the threads here aren't going to "get it done". I thought this an interesting idea for a discussion.

BTW... "hear" should be "here". Be careful. I was shot down and deemed "ill informed" for misspelling Nederlander. Just don't want anyone to think "ill" of you. (Teasing... your comments have been very good ones and I have enjoyed reading your thoughts.)

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 2:49pm

This would never happen. Commercial producing on Broadway is a risky, expensive FOR PROFIT venture. Owning real estate on Broadway is an even larger FOR PROFIT venture. There is no PROFIT in erecting a black box theater of experimental plays and musicals of that size. It is simply not practical and for someone who claims to run his own business, I thought you would understand that most. This is why there are site specific venues, and temporary tents, and small Off-Broadway houses, and not-for-profit organizations like The Public. They do this and do it very well much of the time. To expect that success to translate on Broadway, in a FOR PROFIT world, with 500+ seats, is ludicrous.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 2:56pm

New York is full of many black box/flexible theatre spaces. The Park Avenue Armory is a cavernous space that's housed, amongst other things, a forest and a replica of the Globe Theatre. LaMaMa's largest space is also a black box (and also very large). Out of the five theatre spaces at the Public, only two are permanently set in a particular theatrical configuration (the Newman is proscenium, the Anspacher is a thrust). And there are many more.

Broadway's not a place for them. It's cost-prohibitive.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 3:28pm

Artc3--
Almost nothing is literally impossible, but your original question was not about someone doing the impossible but about rational people doing this. You've been given lots of explanation for why no rational person would do this, so you now have wandered into Don Quixote territory.

As I said, what you are proposing (while I understand the motivation) is illogical, and financially impossible. The renovation of 42nd Street, by contrast, was astute and phenomenally financially rewarding for all parties involved (except maybe the hookers and drug dealers and common criminals). Is it possible that some billionaire will throw away $150 million on this folly? Theoretically, yes; but what you are suggesting is not some run of the mill "dream."

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 3:50pm

HogansHero... if you read back, you'll find that my original post was not a question. I did ask for comments as I was trying to open a discussion.

As for how outrageous my thoughts are... I remember when Disney initially proposed the redesign and revival of Times Square. It was met with far more skepticism then expressed here. AND, for many of the same reasons: it was not financially feasible. Look how that turned out.

I agree that building ANY new Broadway theater is a very risky financial proposition. Yet, we do have some newer venues. Some of them happened because they were developed with multi-use space: The Gershwin / Circle in the Square + office space; The Marquis + hotel space; The Minskoff + office space; The Sondheim and The Palace remained or rebuilt because of office space built above them, etc.

Will there be new Broadway theaters? Who knows. I was only suggesting that perhaps if there is to be new "Broadway" space(s), they might be designed as a performing arts center within a far larger multi-use complex. AND, that perhaps building one or more of the performance spaces as a black box would be an interesting and exciting addition to the traditional Broadway venues.

As for there being many black box / flexible spaces throughout New York... There are several, however few of them could be contracted in a similar fashion as a Broadway house. It was my intention to suggest that shows similar to Natasha could open in a space that was "branded" Broadway: legally entitled to call itself a Broadway production and all that entails.

Is that unrealistic. Of course. The very notion of any new Broadway venue is unrealistic. Contractually, a space large enough to fulfill the requirements of being a Broadway theater AND safely hold 500+ audience members is not an easy sell. Real estate prices in New York make this very prohibitive. However, it is not impossible. Would anyone here have thought Sleep No More possible from a real estate prospective? Yet, it exists and has extended way past the initial 3 month proposed run.

I think madlibrarian's comment best expresses why I started this thread / discussion: "Any art form can ossify without new ideas, and for theater that might include new configurations for production..."

I would like to believe that if these "dream / unrealistic" spaces existed, there would be more, Dudes and Candides on Broadway and that shows like Natasha and HERE LIES LOVE would feel more welcome.

[Sauja]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 4:24pm

I'm not sure I understand why people got so angry about this subject! We've had two examples of theaters that need non-traditional spaces to work with Here Lies Love and Natasha, etc. in the past year. The desire to transfer them to Broadway is a result of the belief that Broadway designation carries some sort of cache. Tony eligibility, more review attention, etc. Maybe those sorts of shows aren't going to keep coming around that often. Or maybe they're a sign of things to come. The idea of having a large flexible space that is designated a Broadway theater doesn't seem that insane to me. Or impossible. Maybe all it would take would be retrofitting Circle in the Square to be even more flexible. If there continue to be shows like the two I mentioned that people think could make them more money if a more flexible space with Broadway designation existed, then it would become commercially viable. Maybe not soon, but eventually.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 4:38pm

It is not financially viable or lucrative and Broadway is a commercial for profit business.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 4:48pm

Artc3, I think it is very admirable that you have started this thread for which I have enjoyed reading so far. As this is a message board primarily for light hearted discussion to discuss all the merits, pros and cons on everything to do with theatre, which nothing is off limits.

Now I have always thought that that a theatre based on a expanded Donmar Warehouse in London, which would sit about 650 people, which no seat would be more than 12 rows back, also attached to the theatre would be a top class Michelin star restaurant, where guests could enjoy top class food with some of the finest wines and then be entertained with either one of the best play or musical on Broadway.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 5:09pm

Phantom of London... you rock! And, I agree.

I was just thinking about all of the COMMERCIAL, or would be COMMERCIAL productions that would benefit from such space. I remember the very COMMERCIAL, FINANCIALLY VIABLE, London production of Starlight Express (artistically questionable).

It is true that proscenium seating is very efficient. Inviting 500+ people safely, financially viably, 8 times a week, into a space to share a performance requires some very serious considerations. It is true that many - if not most (all?) - of the productions that have explored alternate seating / viewing configurations require more space. Space = $$$

So, I do understand many of the comments here. I just believe that if there was this type of COMMERCIAL space available to producers and creatives (not to say producers aren't creative) then there would be more opportunity to mount these unique productions.

I know that the costs for mounting Candide and Dude were huge, and a sizable chunk of that cost was in renovating and then rebuilding the Broadway Theatre. What if there was a space that didn't have those associated costs?

I do think HERE LIES LOVE and Natasha would have transferred. In the case of Natasha, I think having had the Broadway "brand" would have helped ticket sales.

Anyway, those who are in agreement with me are in the minority of the posters here...

Updated On: 12/18/13 at 05:09 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 5:18pm

ArtC3, What you are saying about the 42nd Street revitalization is not correct. Yes, there were naysayers-plenty of them-regarding whether 42nd Street would ever "come back." But the redevelopment work there was based on detailed studies and urban planning going back more than a decade before Disney reopened the New Amsterdam. That work plotted a course that was not guaranteed (just as Broadway shows are not guaranteed to be successful) but it was based on well-thought out planning. There is only one major fiasco that has resulted from all that work-the Little Shubert-and interestingly enough, if you look at what went wrong there, it's the same thing you are proposing for this black box-f formula that won't work even if everything goes right.

What you are suggesting is akin to a show that comes to Broadway that someone fell in love with, but that will never recoup. Except that you have to add an extra zero to all the numbers. I admire your interest in this-I don't disagree it's something that would be nice to have-but the costs are stacked against it, and if you do a budget for a show, it'll make the major flops look like successes. Moreover, the 2 shows that keep getting mentioned don't inspire confidence that they would fill a Broadway size house (even a small one.) Natasha is not selling out a much smaller venue, and the Public apparently wasn't able to make the numbers work for an off-B transfer-so why think a Broadway transfer would be anythiing other than Passing Strange redux? But most importantly, even if you had this 500ish seat black box you want, and these shows sold it out, they would still lose money. No one builds theatres to fail.

Sauja-I basically answered your question above-those 2 shows do not have the sort of mojo that it would take to work on Broadway. I'm not angry (maybe some are) and I wish it would work, but this is a numbers game and the numbers tell all.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 5:48pm

HogansHero... you make some very compelling points. I'm not exactly sure that we disagree with the 42 Street revitalization project. I remember reading many articles in several papers about the "inherent risks" in redeveloping the area. I do agree that numerous studies were done and that those who invested money, including the city, did their best to reduce the risk. I remember many critics who were hugely skeptical. Anyway...

I absolutely agree that Candide and Dude aren't prime examples of financially viable projects. -- laughing --

What I don't understand is your last point. If you were to mount an immersive production in a 500 seat black box vs. a proscenium with similar rents and production costs, why would the proscenium production have a greater chance of recouping the investment? Or, the immersive production less a chance?

The rent, salaries and advertising expenses - three of the largest expenses in mounting a Broadway production would be the same, or very similar. Building "the environment" would be an additional expense - and perhaps a very hefty one, but I don't believe necessarily as cost prohibitive as you suggest. There are many very expensive sets being built today. Running costs would be mostly the same.

I would think that there might be other important issues... I remember the seating at Candide extremely uncomfortable and that might effect audience attendance. HERE LIES LOVE and its very limited seating could definitely limit an audience's interest in attending. I know of a lot of people who wouldn't even consider standing - let alone dancing - for 90 minutes.

I guess what I'm asking is this... If my "fantasy" theater existed and was being rented as a Broadway theater with the same contractual agreements; the many unions extended to this space the very same contracts afforded other Broadway productions; and the media offered the same advertising costs; why would this production be any more risky than one situated in a traditional proscenium? Am I missing something?

This is a genuine question.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 5:54pm

follow up... I guess what I'm saying is this... If there was a Broadway space that could comfortably hold 500+ people and the HERE LIES LOVE production requirements, why wouldn't The Public take the risk? Upsizing that environment and running that show would not be any more prohibitive than mounting a proscenium version.

What are your thoughts?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 7:26pm

Artc3--sorry, I left a thought half unsaid and it took my point right off the rail.

the problem is that the smallest Broadway theatres are hard to make money in. that's one reason why they are usually the last to be taken. There is no cost differential between a small proscenium house and your black box. the problem is that places like the Lyceum, Circle in the Square, the Hayes etc hard to make money in, and what you are asking someone to do is build a new space that is hard to make money in, and that is the last to rent. If you look, you'll see that the typical tenant in these places is a newbie producer. Why? because experienced producers know the deck is stacked against them. It takes just about the same amount to run the non-production side of a show in a 700 seat house as in a 1400 seat house. Advertising isn't discounted, the box office still needs about the same number of windows and on and on. So what you usually see succeed (and yes there are exceptions like Rock of Ages but that's a special case, I would argue) is shows that have low production budgets, relatively speaking. But you're not wanting to produce 2,3, or even 4 person shows with unit sets and minimal costumes in your black box. And you certainly don't want to immerse 1200 people in your black box experience. When you do a budget for circle in the square (not 500+ but 700+) it is hard to make the numbers "close" meaning that it is hard to find enough money at full capacity to equal the minimum expenses.

The Public couldn't make the numbers work for an off-B transfer. It is even less likely they would in a Broadway house, with much higher salaries and all the other attendant costs. They've tried it, and a lot of producers have lost money signing on. The results have been mixed, except where the have a star, or a high profile production. Here Lies Love, as much as we may love it, has neither. And of course it is not going to sell well to the base Broadway demographics. I wish I could be more optimistic about all this-I am certainly not angry you brought it up-I think it is good to discuss-but I just don't see how it works.

Phantom mentions the Donmar-it's worth noting that the Donmar is not West End, and is not a commercial theatre. It is also just 250 seats. We already have several Donmar-ish venues in New York but that's not answering the Broadway question. Making it 650 seats gets you right back in the same trouble.

Updated On: 12/18/13 at 07:26 PM

[temms]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 7:30pm

ARTc3, I agree with you 100% and it's frustrating to read the obtuse, closed-minded petulant replies of so many of the posters on this thread.

The sad matter is that I have had your exact idea and talked about it to people in real life who I thought would like it, and have gotten basically the same response as on here.

I think when people hear "black box" they think "small". I absolutely agree with you that there could be a Broadway-sized space seating between 750-1350 people configured in something other than a traditional proscenium. Basically you just need electrical power capacity, high ceilings and enough open space between structural columns. "Broadway" is defined as a theatrical piece being performed under a Production Contract in a League-designated space with more than 500 seats and in the geographical grid between 40th-54th St and 6th - 9th Ave.

There is no reason why an enterprising producer could not decide that his/her show would benefit from a more environmental staging, find an appropriately-sized space within the boundaries, use more than 500 seats, hire everybody under the prevailing Broadway agreements, and present it as a Broadway attraction, eligible for Tony Awards among other things, and also with the "cache" or the "imprimatur" or being a "Broadway" show, which like it or not makes a huge difference in the public's perception.

Why would the rent on such a space have to be prohibitively more than what the Nederlanders take if your show is in one of their houses? If it's the same number of seats, the same ticket prices, the same salaries, why would it be financially all that different than any other Broadway show? I'm sure a brilliant designer would gleefully accept the challenge of designing not only the playing space, but also integrating 1000-odd audience members into it.

Roseland would be a great space. I had a pipe dream that maybe the Virgin Megastore space could have been a Broadway-sized environmental house. It would solve the problem of where to put "Here Lies Love" or "Natasha etc." Producers may be more inclined to produce shows that would play well in a large space and have a broad appeal but don't work best in a proscenium space if there were a place to do them.

I'm sure had BWW been around in the '60s we'd have people screaming about how you can't have Air Conditioning in a theatre, the buildings are too big for it to work well, the contraptions are too loud, and people go away for the summer and shows close down, anyway. People aren't going to Broadway in the summer, they're going to things outdoors or Summer Stock Melody Tents and so forth. It's economically unfeasible to air condition an entire Broadway theatre, not to mention it would require structural overhauls to some of the buildings as they didn't leave room for A/C ducts when they built the buildings. People have gone to the theatre since the beginning of time without air conditioning, there's no reason a Northern city with harsh winters needs to equip its theatres with expensive, useless equipment to cool them off during the brief time of year no one goes anyway. It makes absolutely no financial sense and no one will ever do it.

Let's bookmark this thread somewhere on our computers and if BWW is still around in 10 years let's look back and see how foolish the naysayers look when there have been multiple environmental Broadway productions in non-traditional spaces, and possibly one or more permanent venues for them.

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 7:35pm

Here's another example: in November 1970 a production of ORLANDO FURIOSO played at the so-called Bubble Theater in Bryant Park. The space was an air-inflated tent that was said to have a capacity of 3000! It was some kind of "environmental" production with the audience standing and milling about. It was always listed in the ABCs and appears to have run under Broadway ($$$) contracts. As this was 43 years ago it may not be an ideally timely example, but someone believed enough to construct a temporary performance space for it, in the apparent absence of a permanent space!

[temms]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 8:02pm

And for fun, I've been looking for an excuse to share these. I snapped a couple of pics of the "Dude" set as they appear in a newspaper article about the construction. They're not great quality - I wish I had a good scanner. I grabbed these at the Lincoln Center library.

Basically, they removed all the seats from the Orchestra section at the Broadway, and build an elevated stage floor in its place, making the Mezzanine the main level. They also built a second section of seating basically above the existing stage, behind the proscenium arch.

Here's a pic where you can see them building the new stage floor. This pic is taken from the back of the balcony, House Left. You can see the proscenium and how low the opening is, giving you some indication how high up the stage floor was.



Here's the set closer to finished, taken from the balcony House Right. You can see the front rail of the mezzanine pretty clearly.



And here's a "fisheye" view of the finished set.



I wish there were better pics out there that show the set - these are all I've ever found. At the time, some people wondered why they needed to tear apart a theatre to do that and couldn't they have just gone into an empty space and built it up?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 9:28pm

Temms, those pics show something very similar to what was done at the Selwyn when they brought The Hairy Ape uptown in the late 90s. I'm sure you are having fun poo-pooing the fact based explanation for why this idea has never been realized, but what you are dreaming about isn't tethered to facts. First, what you are talking about is much much larger than the original idea, and it is really quite different. I don't think anyone would seriously consider bringing Here Lies Love into a venue that immerses that size crowd into a mosh pit. (The issue, incidentally, is not the proscenium-it's having flexible or no seating.) It is very easy to say that that some "enterprising producer" could do this. That's true, if they had enough money to produce 10 Broadway shows laying around unspent. Were there any economic logic to this, wouldn't you think someone would do it? Sometimes there are reason things don't happen, and it's best not to just blindly ignore them. There are a number of venues that could have been used to herd a large crowd around in midtown; why do we have no examples of it being done other than on a one-off basis? Yes we have had tents, but there is a big difference between pitching a tent on a vacant lot and operating a theatre in a building that's sitting on some of the most expensive real estate in the world. The reason is that lots of people who know a lot more about what's involved than you seem to have considered and rejected the idea. This is not about technology, or art; it's economics.