Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 12/30/18 — Page 3

JudyDenmark said: "As a straight woman who tries to see every showthat either interests me or has great buzz... I have to admit I originally had no interest in Torch Song. Honestly not sure why, other than that I'm just not a huge Harvey Fierstein fan. (It's irrational;I certainly respect his career.)I ended up seeing it because of all of the positive reviews on this board, and I'm really glad I did because I genuinelyenjoyed it - I thought the performances were outstanding, especially Michael Urie! But even now I still don't feel like it was "for me." I'm 100% an LGBT ally, to be clear, and happily see shows regularly with gay themes, but for some reason this one in particular feltlike it was intended specifically for a gay male audience who would personally connect with Arnold's story.

It's kind of like me going to a gay bar... there are some that are more inclusive and welcoming to straight people where I can go with gay friends and have a great time,and some where I would feel wildly out of place, like I was intruding on someone else's safe space. Nothing wrong with either, it's just a different vibe. And Torch Song sort of felt like the theatrical equivalent of the latter, to me. (I am hoping that this doesn't come off offensive in any way - definitely not my intention!!)"

Judy, I enjoyed reading your post and, as a gay man, found absolutely nothing offensive about it. It did make me wonder, though, whether you saw The Boys in the Band, and if so, did it also make you feel out of place?

I think a lot of it might have to do with how Judy feels. And people thinking it's not "for them." I mean I can't imagine many straight couple tourists opting for Torch Song. But then again, it ran for years originally, so what's that say about our current climate?

Kad said: "My mind goes back to The Ferryman, which boasts no stars
"

Ummmm Paddy Considine is one of the UK/Irelands biggest film/television actors of the last 15 years (actually in the UK he is probably THE most respected actor there is) and Sam Mendes is one of it's biggest directors not to mention the play itself has won every award there is in the UK.

I have not seen the play but is it not about a lot of Irish folk lore etc? There are a hell a lot of Americans from Irish decent is there not which is probably why it is also doing well.


There is no great mystery as to why TS has failed. It played with the same cast for half the price less than a year ago. I loved it, I saw it twice in a week, but there is no way I'd be going a third time less than a year latter.

BITB was an 'event' this year. Angels was an 'event' this year. Torch was an 'event' LAST year...

Updated On: 1/4/19 at 11:26 AM

haterobics said: "Impossible2 said: "Kad said: "My mind goes back to The Ferryman, which boasts no stars
"

Ummmm Paddy Considine is one of the UK/Irelandsbiggest film/television actors of the last 15 years (actually in the UK he is probably THE most respected actor there is) "

You think a majority of ticket buyers are specifically buying ticketsto see him?"

To a lot of non American tourists in tourist season yes. He would be the only reason I would go to see it.

They would certainly go to see him over Urie who no one outside of a few Broadway geeks has even heard of.

haterobics said: "Impossible2 said: "haterobics said: "You think a majority of ticket buyers are specifically buying ticketsto see him?"

To a lot of non American tourists in tourist season yes. He would be the only reason I would go to see it."

The question is whether that slice would be a majority of ticket buyers, though. You think it is over $1M this week specifically because of non-American tourists who want to see Considine?

The point being most people want to see Ferryman over Torch Song, regardless of who is in either show."

Whatever you say is correct x

Without knowing exactly the demographics of The Ferryman's audience, I wouldn't be able to say that Considine's presence or its subject matter is drawing in enough UK tourists to add massively to the show's success. Wouldn't people in the UK who would have wanted to see the actor or the show already seen it when it was there?

Also- probably the most respected actor there is in the UK? Really?! The country boasts folks like Mark Rylance, Ian McKellen, Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Helen Mirren. This isn't a knock on Considine, but- most respected actor in the UK?

Updated On: 1/4/19 at 11:52 AM

Kad said: "Without knowing exactly the demographics of The Ferryman's audience, I wouldn't be able tosay that Considine's presence or its subject matter is drawing in enough UK tourists to add massively to the show's success. Wouldn't people in the UK who would have wanted to see the actor or the show already seen it when it was there?

Also- probably the most respected actor there is in the UK? Really?! The country boasts folks likeMark Rylance, Ian McKellen, Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Helen Mirren.This isn't a knock on Considine, but- most respected actor in the UK?"

This is all kind of pointless as everything I say as someone who lives in the UK is going to be totally different to American opinions. In the UK yes I would put him on par with all of the people you just mentioned. He is very well loved and respected here, however the comparisons are obviously silly considering the people you mention have been around a lot longer and have done 10 times more. But of 'my' generation I would say yes he is every bit as respected as those 'legends' are.

You're also trying to compare a nearly 40 year old play about gay men to a brand new play.

Surely everyone who wanted to see TS has seen it by now?

Updated On: 1/4/19 at 12:08 PM

SomethingPeculiar said: "Hogan's points re: TORCH SONG are spot-on. People had11 weeks to see it Off-Broadway last year, and most of them probably didn't say "I NEED to see that again at a higher price!" The New York theatergoing crowd has also seen Urie a lot: he's done7 Off-Broadway shows in ~8 years, so it wasn't the novelty of an Erivo "star is born" moment.


Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "Am I just out of the loop, or was Cynthia Erivo not a "name" before she did Color Purple? She was touted above-the-title, won a Tony, etc...."

COLOR PURPLE was a very different situation. It was a "star is born" moment for Erivo, whereas Michael Urie has worked steadily in theatre/TV for 12 years.But remember, COLOR PURPLE wasn't a big commercialhit: it didn't announce recoupment, and it averaged about 68% gross potential over the course of its run. And as for the billing,Erivo got lucky since the second- and third-leads were more famous than her. The Tonys/awards season were also part of what anointed her."

I think you are spot on. Erivo got reviews that usually end up on a list of legendary performances. I have to admit that I still didn't click with the newer Color Purple (I still don't like the score), so i thought she gave an excellent performance, if not one for MY theoretical list of legendary performances. But the reviews pointed to a legendary performance and many seemed to agree.

Urie is known to regular theatergoers who actually attend off-Broadway performances regularly (and people who watched Ugly Betty recognize his face, if not his name). His reviews, and the play's, were generally excellent, but nowhere near Erivo's and Color Purple's (FYI: I actually enjoyed TS more, although I did feel that it dragged a little in both Acts 1 and 2). TS reviews as a whole did not cry out 'you are missing an incredible event if you do not see this production'.

There is one other factor that may have played a role.,based on reading these comments This opened within 6 months of Angels and Boys in the Band. Maybe some regular (but not the ones who see 20 shows or more a year) theatergoers were just not interested in seeing a third play about the gay experience in 6 months, especially since it did not have star casting.

And, finally, I do think the person who mentioned the sheer number of plays to choose from raised a good point. I have only been in NYC since October for 7 days, yet I have managed to see Lifespan, Torch Song, American Son, The Ferryman, Bernhardt / Hamlet, The Waverly Gallery, Network, and Choir Boy (atypically, only one musical, The Prom, which I enjoyed, but less than every single one of those plays). With such a rich set of options (plus Potter and TKAM), a starless revival had too many obstacles to face.

Kad said: "My mind goes back to The Ferryman, which boasts no stars and is about a more foreign subject matter than Torch Song, yet took in over a million last week. What makes The Ferryman feel like a must-see event and Torch Song not? Yes, it received critical hosannas, but we all know critical hosannas can only go so far.

IMO The Ferryman was one of the best productions of a play that I have seen in 55 years of theatergoing. It ranks up there to me with the original production of The Great White Hope, the Redgrave / Dennehy LDJIN, the Blanchett Streetcar, the Lincoln Center Cherry Orchard with Irene Worth and an incredible cast, the original production of Fences, the Doll's House with Janet McTeer, Sweet Bird of Youth with Irene Worth, A Moon for the Misbegotten with Dewhurst and Robards, Nicholas Nickelby, Private Lives with Maggie Smith, the original production of Angels (Millennium Approaches -- I have never particularly liked Perestroika), Curious Incident, Cyrano de Bergerac with Derek Jacobi, and the recent revival of The Norman Conquests, all off the top of my heads I improbably forgetting my most favorite. (I'll mention one more which will stay with me forever, even though a lot of people disliked it intensely: the recent production of The Crucible at the Walter Kerr).

Torch Song was (again IMO) just not in that league, either play or production. I did get restless in both Acts 1 and 2 (especially 2), I thought Urie was overall excellent, although I found his mugging a little annoying (i remember when a poster on this board stated that Urie's chosen inflection reminded him/her of the cartoon character, Snagglepuss; which -- while I did not think of it -- I thought was absolutely on target...it actually irritated me. Also, I thought the kid was about 10 years too old for the part, and that Ed was just too 'movie star handsome' for the role. (Interestingly, the original production was over an hour longer than this one, and I do not recall being restless at all -- go figure).

yankeefan7 said: "I saw the original also and for some reason I thought they had two intermissions."

Hmm, for that it would almost need to be a trilogy of acts?!

as rehearsed earlier in this thread, it is pretty clear that the raison d'être for the Broadway production was not financial but a desire to do it for Harvey and, collaterally, for Richie. It's not much different than what happened with Indecent, where the Mother Roth wanted to bestow a Broadway production on her friend, the playwright. It just turned out less successfully. But money is not the root of all producing decisions, and this is certainly not like a retail business coming to town. As also rehearsed, there is not one solitary reason for the failure. There rarely is.

Whatever the reason for a move, we on the outside can only speculate--but fun having a theory.