American Theater vs. London

I saw King Charles III last night, and I was reading all the bios and numerous actors listed playing BAM on tour with a play or having previously played Broadway with another play that transferred from London. Why don't American plays ever do this? I mean, we have Hand to God going to London, but not a single American cast member transferred. But we have the entire company of King Charles III coming over. And at BAM we got Ghosts, etc, and at St. Ann's we've got all female Shakespeare and Streetcar Coming. Our American productions don't seem to ever tour around to other countries. Why is that?

The National Theatre in London brought over August: Osage County and Fela. The entire cast of Hair transferred.

Updated On: 1/10/16 at 06:10 AM

"Chicago" does go international from time to time: most recently in Abu Dhabi, South Korea, Japan. The show also has local productions as well (Germany, for example). In the UK, the show is beginning its own production and touring all over their country. That's one of the good things about the show: it has a well known international appeal.

That's a good point re: Curious. But I wouldn't consider Chicago in the same vein of stuff I'm talking about as it's a phenomenon now, like The Lion King.

I just mean like smaller productions that get good reviews. Like Cate Blanchett touring with Streetcar or the Maids, etc. We don't send plays abroad or 'on tour' with the original casts like ever.

If I remember correctly, everybody from The Scottsboro Boys was in the Broadway production, with the exception of Brandon Victor Dixon, but he was in the off broadway