Broadway shows are becoming embarrassingly cheap-looking

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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