Does Chicago need to close? — Page 3

The whole argument about whether "Chicago" needs to close or should close seems to me to be missing the point. If the show is no longer profitable, then it will close. It's that simple.

As long as the show earns its keep, as it is apparently doing, it will run. And if it runs, and the show is tired, then the producers have an obligation to get the show back into shape-- if need be, to bring in fresh faces who will give the show the energy level it requires, and that the paying customers have a right to expect.

It's a great piece, when done right. Unfortunately, it's not now being done right. The producers should take notice.

"Not that I agree with it but the Producers have absolutely ZERO obligation, in this request. To you or anyone else. Their obligation stops at selling tickets and making money!

Obviously I'm aware of the other 1,000 responsibilities but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say... "


I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't agree with you. Anyone who provides a service or product to a paying customer, whether it be a car, a refrigerator, or a Broadway show, has an obligation to make sure that the service or product is of sufficient quality to justify the expenditure.

"LOL. According to the ticket sales and gross/income, they are certainly doing that."

They're not. That's the problem.

"Ticket sales tell differently. If EVERYONE believed what you believed, they wouldn't be doing so well for years and years... Sorry."


I can't speak for what's been going on in past years, since I haven't attended this show on a yearly basis. But from what I saw last week, the producers are not presenting anywhere near the quality of what this show was when it opened. And the audience response was tepid, at best.

If, as you say, others still think it's being presented as well as it should be, then good for them. I felt ripped off, however.

Incidentally, the seats at the Ambassador are worn and frayed. Where does the "theatre restoration" fee go, and for what?

Fosse, I'm not speaking to its quality...

My point was, rather, that ticket sales are telling us it doesn't NEED to close. Who cares who the audience is? Tourists count. They're buying the tickets and "Chicago" is still profitable - it's not about the actual quality.

I'm not saying that I support that sh!t hole of a production. But they have every right to keep the show as it currently is. It's kind of like their party and they'll cry if they want to, ya know? It's doing no harm to Broadway. Let the tourists and "Chicago" groupies enjoy it. Whatever.

---

"I have an acquaintance who has been in the cast for years, and openly admits to staying with the show because its a steady paycheck. This person is bored to death, dreads going to the theatre every night, but has vowed to stay in it until it closes or their contract is not renewed, whichever comes first."

That's some attitude your acquaintance has.

Deplorable in every respect.

To some people a job is a job. And I don't think there's anything inherently offensive about that.

"To some people a job is a job. And I don't think there's anything inherently offensive about that."

I think it's offensive if one is not doing the job the way it should be done.



"I agree. You would be surprised with how many Broadway actors, both young and old, simply view it as a paycheck - and nothing more than that.

Some people have this euphoric belief that every day is a "dream come true" for these performers... Or that they're going through some crazy intense artistic masterpiece, hour after hour.

Take off the shades, folks."


I'm not wearing shades. If someone is bored to tears and dreads going to the theatre to do the job he's getting paid to do, then that person should damn well suck it up and find a way to earn his keep, and give the members of the audience the level of professionalism they paid for and have a right to expect. There are plenty of out-of-work actors who would love to be so bored to death, and would probably give a hell of a lot better performance.

That's what distinguishes the people who are committed to their craft from those who shouldn't be practicing it. Judy Holliday, a brilliant actress who could give a great performance any night without even trying, was still working on improving her performance at the closing night of "Bells Are Ringing." It's depressing that others don't follow her example.

"There's a little thing called truth in advertising..."

When was the last time that happened? LOL

---

Well snob, at least it's usually not as deceptive as indicating that something is going to a building when actually it's (allegedly) setting up funding to pay people in the event of a strike. I'm sorry...the public doesn't fund MY union's strike fund should a strike be necessary. Why should I fund someone else's? That type of funding should come from a) dues which are mandatory and automatically deducted and/or b) something like the UFT Cope fund where we elect to participate and contribute $5 pre-tax per check to fund things like this as well as political action.

I deal with the union thing because I don't have an option since this isn't a right-to-work state. I'm not happy about it.

I certainly don't like knowing I've been deceived into funding someone else's as well under the guise of "theater restoration".

Updated On: 12/17/09 at 11:13 AM

The only time a show "needs" to close is when it stops making money. The original poster thought the show was tired and poorly performed. I saw it in 1999 and thought it was terrific. But I also saw the original "Chorus Line" in 1980 (5 years into the run) and thought most of the cast was lifeless. By that point, I think they'd run through just about every "dancer-who-can-sing-and-act" in NY, so many of the parts were undersung and poorly acted. Yet, it ran another 10 years. Long runs ebb and flow over time.

No, "Chicago" does not need to close, or any show for that matter.

Think of the ripple effect of when a show closes. Actors, crew, musicians, box office/usher staff are unemployed. Taxis, limos, cafes and restaurants won't get that money from customers.

You're right........"needing" a show to close is much more important than people spending money, keeping artists employed, and enjoying themselves in this down economy.