Broadway shows are becoming embarrassingly cheap-looking

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 10:25am

While I hate to give this publication any oxygen, he's not wrong.

My favorite line: "We’ve got an unfurnished Doll's House starring Oscar winner Jessica Chastain (top ticket $299), which features only a few chairs positioned on a turntable that’s lit like a hospital broom closet."

https://nypost.com/2023/03/21/broadway-shows-are-becoming-embarrassingly-cheap-looking/

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 10:39am

He has a couple valid points, but I do disagree with some things... I think there's a difference between "cheap" and artistic "minimalism"... For example, I thought the current Camelot revival, while featuring a somewhat sparse set, was still visually stunning. Then there was Bad Cinderella which looked dirt cheap even though it had quite a few large set pieces (those village set units were wobbly and looked like they were about to topple at any second).

I think productions like Into the Woods and Parade that were conceived as concerts at Encores! and then transferred to Broadway are a unique situation. Should we hold these productions to the same standards? Part of me says yes since they are playing Broadway at Broadway prices. However, in the same vein, I loved Into the Woods for it's minimalistic approach to the physical design that allowed the show itself to be the star.

I disagree re: & Juliet... I thought that show looked great and had a really nice set. Just because it has some brick walls doesn't make it less of a set! I guess for me as long as the quality of the set serves the overall production and directorial vision, I'm happy no matter how big or small it may be.

[binau]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 10:45am

Some non theatre friends have complained to me about this - personally because I always resonate to the acting and writing, it isn’t something that really bothers me. In particular I think the Parade staging perfectly represents what’s needed in the show, and it’s a tough show anyway so they need to be financially cautious. So I think it’s a little unfair Parade has been called out here. 

Can anyone provide some perspective on the costs involved with larger staging - is the primary concern the initial upfront design and build or is the ongoing maintenance and operation of large sets also one of the significant reasons for cost reduction? 
 

[Bryce 2]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:04am

All the shows mentioned in this aren't nearly as terrible as the sets we got for Pretty Woman, The Prom, and Tootsie...

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:09am

I was surprised and disappointed Into the Woods transferred as-is. It was a disappointing physical production of a show that really benefits from lavishness. It very easily could have been juiced a bit as it made the transfer. Obviously, the production was embraced and successful and I was wrong. Haha. 

The rest of the criticisms seem misplaced. The staging of Parade feels very full and appropriate. A Doll's House is obviously making an intentional, artistic choice. I question whether it's really the right artistic choice for such a large, Broadway theater... but folks have made questionable artistic choices since the birth of Broadway.  

[Theatrefanboy1]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:11am

I do wonder when we went from extravagance to what appear to be cardboard set pierces and empty stages.  Because I definitely agree that a lot of the new shows just look bad. And yet 299$ per ticket

[ANewBrainn]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:18am

Broadway prices don't automatically equal scenic opulence.  The entire production of A Dolls House was designed for artistic purposes.  I'm sure if the director wanted to have a more elaborate set he would have.  And as for these encores transfers is he also going to complain about Chicago?  An encores transfer with virtually no set that has been on broadway (and charging broadway prices) for 25 years.  Parade has a much more elaborate set than Chicago.  We have some recent things that are somewhat elaborate but look awful (Funny Girl), but something like Life of Pi looks amazing.  In the end I feel good design no matter how simple is more important than something that looks elaborate and expensive.  Even with the high ticket prices things arent recouping.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:25am

binau said: "Can anyone provide some perspective on the costs involved with larger staging - is the primary concern the initial upfront design and build or is the ongoing maintenance and operation of large sets also one of the significant reasons for cost reduction?"

It’s the upfront building costs, but also automation, stage hands, etc.

As some others have said, give me tasteful, elegant minimalism over chintzy attempted grandeur any time. Going back to the 40s-60s, a lot of those shows were pretty minimal — backdrops or flats, with some small furniture pieces. In hindsight, some of them look quite cartoony.

As a wise man once said, content dictates form. Even the great old legends like Eugene Lee and Robin Wagner would tell you that a big musical set needs to be dynamic enough to clear the stage for dance numbers. Hence the designs for Juliet and MJ and SLIH and Hamilton and other shows.

Poor design is the bigger crime than minimalism. The Prom, Mr. Saturday Night, even the recent Music Man revival, etc. A good designer and director can do great work on a limited budget if the show allows.

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:43am

It's almost like we've been through a pandemic and audiences are not returning to the theater to spend money the way they used to.  Or something.

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:47am

I agree with others that the piece draws a simplistic equation between "cheap" and "minimal". The design for "A Doll's House" looks gorgeous to me and full of theatrical potential. It also looks depressingly chic and status quo like tens of thousands of high-end Manhattan apartments that are terrified of committing to a color lest it jeopardize its resale. But is there a more appropriate design for the audience who will come to see this contemporary adaptation of Ibsen's play?

What the piece gets right is that this style has become a default choice, especially for plays. And that usually translates into a safe choice. 

Updated On: 3/22/23 at 11:47 AM

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 12:29pm

One thing to also consider, jumping off Helpmann's point:

The modern sensibilities of whatever time we live in will always seep into period design, as they do with scores and writing and everything else. Be it the visual language of THE STING, or the guys in LES MIS all having fluffy perms when it first opened, or SWEENEY's original color palate being yellow, or Irene Sharaff's FUNNY GIRL costumes, or the BABYLON movie which chose to use more modern costumes for a 20s piece to illustrate "not much has changed."

You can agree or disagree with all of the above, but those are choices and conversations that go into design. There is a spectrum when designing a period piece of how far you want to go, and there's not a right or wrong answer. Opulence looks different to every person –– look at Jeffrey Seller's townhouse vs Aaron Spelling's manse vs Donald Trump's gold apartment.

I remember at the time of the 2011 FOLLIES revival, Gregg Barnes said something like "Phyllis wore a red jumpsuit/pants in the original production which would seem too dated nowadays, hence a c****nay-colored gown." And now that red jumpsuit would be completely at home in a modern Bway show set in 1971.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 12:47pm

I mean, I spoke as much about the new Sweeney in the other thread and got piled on for even mentioning a bigger, more lavish design. 

It doesn't make or break a show, but shoot me, I enjoy production design. I grew up with Wicked, Les Miz, Phantom, Miss Saigon. I love seeing all the moving scenery and how it all comes together. I loved Company because it kept turning and twisting into a new stage picture. Same with the recent Angels in America. 

To me I just can't justify paying $300 for a new play or for Beyonce tickets. 

But at the same time, I still love a good play and the design can still be interesting without being lavish. I loved the design of The Hangmen or Doll's House Part 2. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 1:21pm

Bryce 2 said: "All the shows mentioned in this aren't nearly as terrible as the sets we got for Pretty Woman, The Prom, and Tootsie..."

I agree.  I remember that one of my criticisms of The Prom (I didn’t like the show, loved the movie) was that the cheesiness of the sets were definitely contributors to my negativity (I remember telling a friend that they were among the cheesiest sets I had ever seen.  Would great sets make me enjoy the show?  Don’t know, but I am sure that I would have liked it more.  When I was bored (which was not that much), I could have explored the intricacies of the sets.

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 1:31pm

There's certainly a place for minimalism, but I also think some directors are forgetting that theatre is in itself a visual arts form.  It's the director's job to use their staging and designers to enhance the text and bring to life the world it is set in.  This idea of "let's strip away all the staging and design to focus solely on the text" is why we have books.  Sit down and read it if you want to analyze the text.  The point of putting it on stage is to bring it to life.

To be clear, this is not at all to say that every show needs to have extravagant sets in order to enhance the text.  I love the comparison of Avenue Q, which perfectly embodied that street and the world it was depicting without going too far over the top (the irony of course being that 20 years ago the Wicked vs. Avenue Q Tony argument was "focus on the tinier show and story instead of the extravagance" and now we're using Avenue Q as an example of a more fully staged show).  But this idea that somehow directors are being more creative and more academic by stripping all the staging away to focus on text is simply counterintuitive to the whole point of putting works on stage in the first place.  If Ibsen wanted people just sitting around saying his lines, he would have written a book, not a play.

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 1:38pm

The sets are getting flimsier because those sets are also meant to be used for tours. Producers don't want to spend money on multiple trucks for sets. The price of labor and gas for those trucks is a big chunk of the show's budget. 
 

[KKeller6]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 2:15pm

ANewBrainn said: "Broadway prices don't automatically equal scenic opulence. The entire production of A Dolls House was designed for artistic purposes. I'm sure if the director wanted to have a more elaborate set he would have.

I'm sorry, I'm going to disagree with this. Director's many times come on board knowing exactly that the producers want to keep within a certain budget.  They're all hoping a show will be a hit with minimal sets. Smaller sets mean less start up costs,  and most importantly, less running costs via less stagehands. They're is nothing more important to a show today than the running costs in NYC.

 And as we see, audiences will still come, pay big bucks, and support a good show with a small, or relatively non-existent set.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 2:25pm

I think the typical audience member wants to feel like they got a good return on their investment.  Obviously that is a very personal call. 

Where can that investment show up in a way that is tangible for the audience?

• Cast
• Orchestra size
• Sets
• Artistic team/overall quality of production
• Seat selection, sight lines, and comfort

If it isn't clearly showing up in one or more of the above, the ROI may feel off, particularly if tickets are pricey (again that's in the eyes of the beholder). 

As an example for me personally, I've been fine with the minimal sets and staging for the current Doll's House and for the previous A Doll's House 2 because I felt like I got a good ROI from the starry casting in both and an enjoyable and high-quality experience overall.

[TheatreMonkey]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 3:28pm

KKeller6 said: "ANewBrainn said: "Broadway prices don't automatically equal scenic opulence. The entire production of A Dolls House was designed for artistic purposes. I'm sure if the director wanted to have a more elaborate set he would have.

I'm sorry, I'm going to disagree with this. Director's many times come on board knowing exactly that the producers want to keep within a certain budget. They're all hoping a show will be a hit with minimal sets. Smaller sets mean less start up costs, and most importantly, less running costs via less stagehands. They're is nothing more important to a show today than the running costs in NYC.

And as we see, audiences will still come, pay big bucks, and support a good show with a small, or relatively non-existent set."

That is quite a ..cynical take, especially given the main example of "A Doll's House". Director Jamie Lloyd has established himself as the premier auteur of "stripped-back", " focused on the text and language" productions on both sides of the pond. If you read or watch any interviews with him, the furthest thought from his mind is worrying about scenic costs and budgets. Even if you disagree with his style, it's extremely hard to make an argument that the minimalism isn't intrinsic to his vision and approach, and merely done for budgetary reasons.

On the other hand, if you want to make the argument that certain *producers* want to minimize scenic costs to the extreme, there's evidence of that.

[Dolly80]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 6:16pm

American set design, particularly on Broadway is often cheap looking, whether there is lots of scenery or not. - hello Pretty woman, Tootsie, anything  by David Rockwell generally.
 

I do think that questioning high ticket prices when there is no set like Into the woods is completely valid, and it’s blatantly obvious that these shows that look cheap but have expensive tickets are just lining producers pockets. 
 

how can you equate paying the same for Moulin Rouge as Into the Woods?

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 6:40pm

Though I'm not a great fan of David Rockwell's set designs, even I have to concede that his designs for SHE LOVES ME, ON THE 20TH CENTURY and THE NORMAL HEART were in fact superb. And I heartily agree with Dolly80's main point that a stage full of beautiful scenery should in fact cost more per ticket than a glorified concert staging a la INTO THE WOODS. So sue me.

[binau]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 6:48pm

Dolly80 said: "American set design, particularly on Broadway is often cheap looking, whether there is lots of scenery or not. - hello Pretty woman, Tootsie, anything by David Rockwell generally.


I do think that questioning high ticket prices when there is no set like Into the woods is completely valid, and it’s blatantly obvious that these shows that look cheap but have expensive tickets are just lining producers pockets.


how can you equate paying the same for Moulin Rouge as Into the Woods?"

I recognise that I'm in the minority but I'd probably pay more for Into the Woods than Moulin Rogue because of that cast and Sondheim.....

[Mr. Wormwood]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 8:12pm

Yeah, sorry I don't think the Moulin Rouge/Into the Woods comparison is fair.

Moulin Rouge was dazzling when I walked in the theater. But then the show itself was a big snooze for me despite the glitz and glamour.

I didn't want Into the Woods to end because of the spectacular performances. 

I'm more than willing to spend more for a quality Broadway production than a glorified theme park extravaganza. I don't need to see my money on stage if the quality of the production is good in all the other ways (acting, orchestra, directing, etc) and Into the Woods WAS. 

That being said, I still think there's a place for stunning sets if it fits the show. Like others have said, it comes down to artistic choices. A cheap looking set like Mr. Saturday Night or Tootsie is much different than a minimalist approach like Into the Woods IMO but I also love when there's an elaborate and gorgeous set if the show is good too (like LCT's My Fair Lady for a recent example).

[mememe]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 8:38pm

Anyone would think we’ve been through a global pandemic, and new production budgets reflect this. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 9:10pm

I think one could also make the conclusion that Lloyd’s direction is being heralded because producers want it to succeed since there’s minimal running costs. Stick a star in there, small nothing set, and hope for the best. 
 

There’s a reason Sher mostly sticks with LCT. Those kind of lavish shows are few and far between. We shall see with NY,NY but I thought Sweeney would have been the staging to best this season. Oh well 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 9:59pm

mememe said: "Anyone would think we’ve been through a global pandemic, and new production budgets reflect this."

And yet they are charging astronomical prices to pretty much anything. I get it. Many don’t care about sets. But fyi, many do, and many do not follow theatre as close as we do and will be extremely disappointed when they find out they paid $299 to see Jessica Chastain sitting in a chair on a bare stage for an entire show.