Was Matilda kicked out of Broadway?

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 11:25am

Given what Scott Rudin did to Beetlejuice, did he demand the Shuberts give him the Shubert Theatre for his revival of Hello Dolly!?

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 11:30am

Of course it was

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 11:36am

No, but I heard he's already planning to kick out Bad Cinderella for a new production of Rebecca.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 11:45am

MATILDA really struggled some weeks in 2015-2016, and ran nearly 4 years –– a highly respectable run. I don't think it would have lasted much longer under any other circumstances. Remember, MATILDA also had huge logistical challenges (in addition to its running costs) because of the child actors who had to be cycled out regularly and double/triple/quadruple-cast.

Everything with Broadway real estate is a negotiation. A theatre owner is always on the lookout for its next tenant and will push a producer to close if the numbers aren't looking great. MATILDA announced closing in April 2016 ahead of a January 2017 final perf; DOLLY announced plans to play the Shubert in May 2016, but didn't go on sale until September 2016 ahead of an April 2017 opening. This is all part of the business. If Rudin wanted a large Shubert house, the landscape was as follows in 2016; the Shubert just made the most sense:

Majestic – PHANTOM (no chance of closing)
Winter Garden – SCHOOL OF ROCK (a new hit; no chance of closing)
Broadway – FIDDLER, with SAIGON on the way per Cameron's wishes to return there.
Imperial – LES MIS, with GREAT COMET (+ reno) on the way
Shubert – year 3 of MATILDA

And by the way, guess who had the last laugh in terms of money with the whole MUSIC MAN and BEETLEJUICE situation? Shubert, which got a tenant for more than a year that regularly grossed 2-3million.

Updated On: 1/22/23 at 11:45 AM

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 12:05pm

I don't understand why he didn't put it in the St James.  It's where Hello Dolly! originally played, and in my opinion a superior theatre than the Shubert.

[inception]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 12:14pm

St James is a Jujamcyn theatre, not a Schubert house.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 12:15pm

Broadway Flash said: "I don't understand why he didn't put it in the St James. It's where Hello Dolly! originally played, and in my opinion a superior theatre than the Shubert."

Because Scott had a better relationship with the Shuberts than Jujamcyn, and he simply wanted to play the Shubert. The two theatres are comparable, with the St. J having about 200 more seats, but the Shubert being more beautiful and allowing producers to have a tighter and higher-priced ticket.

And even tho FROZEN didn't open until a year after DOLLY opened, that deal was in the works for a long time and, you'll recall, involved the purchase of an alleyway and expansion of the St. James' backstage space. Jujamcyn was playing the long game with FROZEN, which on paper was a sensible idea; I don't think any of us thought it would do as badly as it did.

Updated On: 1/22/23 at 12:15 PM

[JanMaxwellsBag]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 12:28pm

I find the logistics and economics of the last decade or so of Broadway absolutely fascinating. So much power is held by a relatively small group of people, and it’s wild to see how they leverage their status and connections with others. I would devour a book about it if anyone were to write one. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 12:57pm

Broadway61004 said: "No, but I heard he's already planning to kick out Bad Cinderella for a new production of Rebecca."

Lol wasn’t Rudin originally supposed to produce “Bad” Cinderella? 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 1:51pm

inception said: "St James is a Jujamcyn theatre, not a Schubert house."

Schubert does not own theatres on Broadway. It's Shubert. I am not really a nit-picker but every so often this needs to be corrected so it is not reinforced.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 1:58pm

Same with:

Barbra Streisand - NOT Barbara Streisand

Aubrey Plaza - NOT Audrey Plaza

Kristin Chenoweth - NOT Kristen Chemoweth

Danny Burstein - NOT Danny Burnstein

Patti LuPone - NOT Patti Lupone 

 

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 2:37pm

Broadway Flash said: "I don't understand why he didn't put it in the St James. It's where Hello Dolly! originally played, and in my opinion a superior theatre than the Shubert."

Why do you think the St. James is superior? Just curious :)

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 3:55pm

JanMaxwellsBag said: "I find the logistics and economics of the last decade or so of Broadway absolutely fascinating. So much power is held by a relatively small group of people, and it’s wild to see how they leverage their status and connections with others. I would devour a book about it if anyone were to write one."

I would say the last decade or so is no different than any other time in the history of Broadway. Actually –– with no data in front of me, I might say Broadway at this very moment has the most significant dispersement of power in the past 70 years.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 4:44pm

re "disbursement of power"

I was unclear on whether the question was about landlords, producers, or both. 

I think it is fair to say that the landlord power distribution in, say, 1955, was significantly greater because there were a lot more theatres and a lot more of them were individually owned. There were also more that were operated largely with the owner functioning generally as the actual producer of the shows seen there (such that any question of connections would have been in one or a few brains).

I think producing then (albeit in a far different landscape) was pretty concentrated. If this is mostly about Rudin, it's worth noting that he spent all of his producing life emulating (for better or worse) his mentor, Kermit Bloomgarden, and David Merrick, a person whose shtick he copied pretty transparently. 

Putting these pieces together, I do think it is fair to say that things are more disbursed now than then.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 5:26pm

Yes and with producing & investing being what they are now, more than 1 lead producer is common –– and on a show like HADESTOWN and KINKY BOOTS, it's a true partnership between those producers; one person doesn't hold all the power in an authoritarian way like Rudin or Merrick. So if you've got 3 lead producers, 3 writers, a director, a choreographer, and a music supervisor, depending on the decision you need input/agreement from 7 people, or 9 people, or maybe just 1 person. Plus facilitators like ad agencies and casting directors and general management firms and associates and whatnot. (Which adds its own set of challenges because decisions need to be made by committee)

Updated On: 1/22/23 at 05:26 PM

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 6:51pm

HogansHero said: "If this is mostly about Rudin, it's worth noting that he spent all of his producing life emulating (for better or worse) his mentor, Kermit Bloomgarden, and David Merrick, a person whose shtick he copied pretty transparently."

Been thinking about this comment.

Rudin's fatal flaw was that he never had the longerm foresight for musicals that Merrick had. Someone once quipped "Alex Cohen sold tickets, David Merrick sold shows," and I think Rudin was more like Alex in this case. With the singular exception of MORMON (for which the day to day was run by other people post-opening), people like Jeffrey Seller and David Stone have had far better success on the Merrick model of musical producing.

Scott was crippled by his ego, his drive for quantity, and his unwillingness to go out-of-town for shows. The "snob hit" and prestige is what fueled him, possibly because of his constant wish to transcent his own middle-class Long Island upbringing, and informed by his various mental-health problems.

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 1/22/23 at 11:46pm

FANtomFollies said: "Why do you think the St. James is superior? Just curious :)"

The St. James is better because the mezzanine and balcony are closer to the stage.  Even though it's bigger, it feels more intimate and warm in the theatre than the Shubert.  I love the shades of gold and burgundy and wood in the St. James.  I like the lobby and bar area much more, and I get better vibes overall.  I also have an aversion to green or blue seats in a theatre.  This is obviously my opinion.  

Updated On: 1/22/23 at 11:46 PM

[SouthernCakes]

Posted: 1/23/23 at 7:32am

But to the original question: Matilda was just an expensive show to run. All the children and with the Union rules, etc, made it very expensive to run. And I think that’s why they closed it. They made their money and probably realized rent were just breaking even. The show is still running in London but their Union rules are different there. 

[JanMaxwellsBag]

Posted: 1/23/23 at 11:37am

Thanks for the info, Hogan and Ermengarde! I guess I was just talking about some of the major power producers. Regardless, I still would love to read a book or long form article about some recent producing and how they interact with the theater owners and landlords. 

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/23/23 at 1:01pm

Broadway Flash said: "Given what Scott Rudin did to Beetlejuice, did he demand the Shuberts give him the Shubert Theatre for his revival of Hello Dolly!?"

That's not really how it works. However, Matilda had in fact reached grosses that activated the stop clause. I'm not quite sure of the details, and Rudin certainly wanted the Shubert for Hello, Dolly. But he was given a choice between the Imperial (which would allow Matilda to try and run one more season) or the Shubert. I'd heard it was Bette Midler who insisted on the Shubert.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/23/23 at 1:02pm

JanMaxwellsBag said: "I still would love to read a book or long form article about some recent producing and how they interact with the theater owners and landlords."

Without getting too granular, this is a broad approximation of how the process works between producer and theatre owner:

– Producer has a show. They begin talks with theatre owner(s) with whom they have connections. Inviting them to readings, sending the script, etc.
– Eventually, meetings happen between the producer and individual theatre owners. Sometimes the producer might attend with a secret weapon (the star of the show, the authors, etc) in an attempt to woo.
– It generally boils down to a producer working with one theatre owner, depending on personal connections, interest, scope of show, etc. If you're a play, you're probably gonna be working with the Shuberts because they have a ton of play houses; any show that could play the Jacobs could also play the Lyceum or Schoenfeld or JEJ. There is rarely any "choosing" a theatre unless you happen to have a mega-star with opinions; it is a numbers matter...OR, if you're a giant musical with ultra-specifics, that makes things more challenging because that usually means there's only a couple of houses that could fit your show....OR, in a very very rare & unique situation of a hot show, producers might solicit "bids," as the HARRY POTTER producers did.
– Eventually the theatre owner calls and says "you're next." This can be with 9 months notice or with 9 weeks notice –– but it shouldn't be a total shock, since the producer & theatre owner have been in touch about timeline and feasibility and star availability and such.
– Throughout the show process, the theatre owner and producer remain in touch. There will also be contact between the landlord and General Management firm on legal, logistical, contract matters.
– If a show is selling badly, the theatre owner will tell the producer "you need to close by X date." Things like this happen via phone. The "stop clause" is a legal move that is rarely invoked unless absolutely necessary. The producers want to stay in the good graces of the owner, and the owner usually doesn't need to go that far. Almost always, everyone is in agreement when a show is not selling tickets and burning money.

Updated On: 1/23/23 at 01:02 PM

[Timon3]

Posted: 1/23/23 at 4:06pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "JanMaxwellsBag said: "I still would love to read a book or long form article about some recent producing and how they interact with the theater owners and landlords."

Without getting too granular, this is a broad approximation of how the process works between producer and theatre owner:

– Producer has a show. They begin talks with theatre owner(s) with whom they have connections. Inviting them to readings, sending the script, etc.
– Eventually, meetings happen between the producer and individual theatre owners. Sometimes the producer might attend with a secret weapon (the star of the show, the authors, etc) in an attempt to woo.
– It generally boils down to a producer working with one theatre owner, depending on personal connections, interest, scope of show, etc. If you're a play, you're probably gonna be working with the Shuberts because they have a ton of play houses; any show that could play the Jacobs could also play the Lyceum or Schoenfeld or JEJ. There is rarely any "choosing" a theatre unless you happen to have a mega-star with opinions; it is a numbers matter...OR, if you're a giant musical with ultra-specifics, that makes things more challenging because that usually means there's only a couple of houses that could fit your show....OR, in a very very rare & unique situation of a hot show, producers might solicit "bids," as the HARRY POTTER producers did.
– Eventually the theatre owner calls and says "you're next." This can be with 9 months notice or with 9 weeks notice –– but it shouldn't be a total shock, since the producer & theatre owner have been in touch about timeline and feasibility and star availability and such.
– Throughout the show process, the theatre owner and producer remain in touch. There will also be contact between the landlord and General Management firm on legal, logistical, contract matters.
–If a show is selling badly, the theatre owner will tell the producer "you need to close by X date." Things like this happenvia phone. The "stop clause" is a legal move that is rarely invoked unless absolutely necessary. The producers want to stay in the good graces of the owner, and the owner usually doesn't need to go that far. Almost always, everyone is in agreement when a show is not selling tickets and burning money."

Sometimes the theatre operator doesn’t hold all the cards, especially with a hot ticket elsewhere. The Phantom of the Opera was offered the current Majestic by Shubets, Minskoff by Nederlanders and Al Hirschfeld by Jujamcyn.

I believe similar with Harry Potter, was also offered a theatre by the big 3, cannot remember which now?

So the boot can be on the other foot, especially if a big name is attached with a show that hasn’t played elsewhere.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/23/23 at 4:19pm

Timon3 said: "Sometimes the theatre operator doesn’t hold all the cards, especially with a hot ticket elsewhere. The Phantom of the Opera was offered the current Majestic by Shubets, Minskoff by Nederlanders and Al Hirschfeld by Jujamcyn. I believe similar with Harry Potter, was also offered a theatre by the big 3, cannot remember which now? So the boot can be on the other foot, especially if a big name is attached with a show that hasn’t played elsewhere."

Yup, that can be filed under "very very rare & unique situation of a hot show, producers might solicit 'bids,' as the HARRY POTTER producers did" as I discussed above. It happens maybe one time every few years. But usually if a producer has a good relationship with a theatre owner, they'll go to them first –– especially if they've recently had a show that maybe didn't do so well. This is all a game of relationships. (Of course, then you also get the opposite: producers pitching around to all the theatre owners, and they get either "no"s or "maybe"s.)

Updated On: 1/23/23 at 04:19 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/23/23 at 8:49pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "There is rarely any "choosing" a theatre unless you happen to have a mega-star with opinions; it is a numbers matter...

A producer like Rudin or Macintosh have a bit of sway as well, but the landlord ultimately makes the decision. Dear Evan Hansen was going to go to the Schoenfeld, but was then moved to the Belasco (not sure why). But then it became a logistics issue, when it was determined it could not fit into the Belasco and was then moved to the Music Box.

OR, in a very very rare & unique situation of a hot show, producers might solicit "bids," as the HARRY POTTER producers did.

All Broadway landlords offered Harry Potter the house of their choice (they were all willing to bare the costs of the transfer). Dont forget, Cirque had a long-term lease arrangement at the Lyric that was bought out by ATG.

the theatre owner will tell the producer "you need to close by X date." Things like this happenvia phone. The "stop clause" is a legal move that is rarely invoked unless absolutely necessary.

It's semantics. Telling them they need to close is a de facto invocation of the stop clause. It means the show has met the requirements and the landlord has the right to evict. It's similar to a Cease and desist notice, which isn't technically part of the legal process. Where it differs is that the producer has very little option to fight. So legal action is never really necessary. Beetlejuice outright stated tge stop clause was invoked...there were no lawyers involved and yet here we are.

Almost always, everyone is in agreement when a show is not selling tickets and burning money."

Except we know that's not necessarily true. Phantom was bleeding money since reopening but there was no stop clause. Spider-Man had no intention of closing...how long had that been running without earning anything back? Producers have egos, and unless they've been promised that same theatre for another show they are producing, they do everything to keep it running. 

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 1/23/23 at 9:13pm

“But then it became a logistics issue, when it was determined it could not fit into the Belasco and was then moved to the Music Box.”

DEH only moved because Shuffle Along closed suddenly.