Fiddler Closing- Page 2

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/19/16 at 11:43pm

I'm pretty sure LCT will continue large scale revivals like King and I and South Pacific. It's sort of become their bread and butter and has brought them great acclaim. Wasn't there a rumor they had their eye on My Fair Lady next?

[BroadwayMan5]

Posted: 7/19/16 at 11:46pm

I think these classics would be well served to be revived as limited runs. They can get huge names and do a lavish production. It's hard for the classics to sustain long runs these days when everyone has seen them in some form or another. If one really breaks out, it can be extended or turned into an open run

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 3:58am

I think this has had a decent run in a very big theatre, with no real names.

I don't suspect the producers envisaged it to run any longer.

This will always pull in musical aficinardos and a big vibrant Jewish population in New York.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 9:04am

Jeffrey Karasarides said: "littlemouse921 said: "I'm glad I got to see this. It was new and fresh. I'm sure it would have done better in another season."

I agree. I felt this production would've won Danny Burstein the Tony had Hamilton been out of the way completely (or if Leslie Odom, Jr. had been ruled as Featured). But that really shouldn't take away all the great work he's been doing in it. I thought he was absolutely incredible as Tevye!"

 

Tony Awards are not based on who is giving a great performance. You've been on this board for quite a while, you should know better. Danny refused to campaign for the award, Leslie campaigned. That's how you win a Tony.

 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 9:21am

neonlightsxo said: "Tony Awards are not based on who is giving a great performance."

Updated On: 7/20/16 at 09:21 AM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 9:47am

No need for the stupid gif. neon is exaggerating but not entirely wrong. Much of it is about politics, regardless of the performance itself. You can be naive about it or embrace the truth. 

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 10:01am

neonlightsxo said: "Tony Awards are not based on who is giving a great performance. You've been on this board for quite a while, you should know better. Danny refused to campaign for the award, Leslie campaigned. That's how you win a Tony."

Mark Rylance was never out campaigning for the Oscar, yet he still ended up winning.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 10:10am

Headband, did...I ask you?

I'm not debating that there's a political/campaigning impact on award decisions—I know that's true. I posted the gif because I think it's a bit ridiculous to outright say that Tonys are "not" given on performance quality. I think performance quality is, um, a pretty sizable chunk of deciding the Tonys...

I also think Odom was giving a world-class performance above Burstein last season, and I'm a massive Burstein lover. Odom deserved that Tony, campaigning or not.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 10:56am

Jeffrey Karasarides said: "neonlightsxo said: "Tony Awards are not based on who is giving a great performance. You've been on this board for quite a while, you should know better. Danny refused to campaign for the award, Leslie campaigned. That's how you win a Tony."

Mark Rylance was never out campaigning for the Oscar, yet he still ended up winning."

 

I didn't say Oscars. I said Tony Awards. Did you read my post?

 

I also didn't say Leslie didn't deserve it. He did, which I knew when I saw Hamilton at the Public. But you don't win JUST for that. It's complicated. Updated On: 7/20/16 at 10:56 AM

[ZellMorrowsPledge]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 12:00pm

I guess Hamilton will transfer to the Broadway now

Updated On: 7/20/16 at 12:00 PM

[rjm516]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 2:59pm

I really hope it lasts till December!!!

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 3:24pm

Let us take a minute to recognize what Fiddler is and isn't. 

It is a LCT style musical revival in a commercial setting. It is not something susceptible to a limited run.

It was a foolish enteprise ab initio.

It says nothing about what LCT does, which unquestionably be continued as is unless and until someone like me becomes the artistic director. 

 

[carnzee]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 3:50pm

It was a foolish enteprise ab initio.

Why is this? I mean I can guess why it might be foolish to revive Fiddler, but I wondered if you could elaborate. Also I really appreciate your posts, Hogan.



 

 

"

 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 4:15pm

^Interested to know the same thing, as a fellow admirer of yours, Hogan. Why do you consider it to have been a foolish venture?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 4:19pm

carnzee said: "Why is this? I mean I can guess why it might be foolish to revive Fiddler, but I wondered if you could elaborate. Also I really appreciate your posts, Hogan."

I think that large scale revivals are, in general, the stuff of non-profits (which essentially means LCT by default). I don't think there is enough interest to sustain a long enough run to make the lines cross (meaning break even). In this particular case, I think in light of the fairly recent revival of Fiddler, that interest was even weaker. I didn't dislike the production as some here and elsewhere did, but I also don't think it made a case for itself as a must see, nor can I envision what someone would have said about it beforehand to give anyone the impression it had that as a possibility. 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 7/20/16 at 11:22pm

BroadwayMan5 said: "I think these classics would be well served to be revived as limited runs. They can get huge names and do a lavish production. It's hard for the classics to sustain long runs these days when everyone has seen them in some form or another."

As one who had never considered the possibility that the classics would not continue to be revived before large enthusiastic audiences forever, the fate of Fiddler and TK&I has caused me to rethink. Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation," which created the original productions, has all but checked out. The "Boomers," who were too young to have seen the originals, nevertheless grew up surrounded by the music. They were drawn to see revivals of the shows that had produced that music. They (we) are well into the process of following the prior generation.

It is now over seventy years since Oklahoma and Carousel and our culture and mores have undergone enormous changes. Most of the very popular Broadway entertainments bear no resemblance to the Broadway book musical. 

For most young men and women seeing a King and I poster, it will not bring up memories of "Getting to Know You," "A Puzzlement," and the famous polka. From my monitoring of this board, it was hard to find a single individual who did not have a very positive response to King and I. This included those younger people who had absolutely no prior knowledge of what they were about to see. 

Of course these musicals won't go away, as, for one thing, the music is too damn good. Look how many operas have been granted the highest respect on the strength of the vocals alone. But BroadwayMan5 may be right about the future of these musicals.**

**Gypsy is of course exempt from this since so many fine, aging Broadway stars want that guaranteed Tony nomination with about a 50% chance of a win.

 

 

[OrchardAndRivington]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 12:44am

Plus, It looks like they have decided to pull the Mezzanine curtain across to close off the Rear Mezz on Tues, Wed Mat, Wed Eve and Thurs performances beginning the Tuesday following Labor Day, 9/6. 

This essentially brings the Broadway Theatre to about 1320 seats (including what seems to be some consistently blocked side-orchestra locations- approx the last 4 seats on both the extreme right and left side aisles), down from the 1707 it currently has to sell.. I believe Sister Act did this as well when their weekly seat count changed from 14040 to 11944 after Labor Day 2011. 

Similar to Balcony getting closed at the St. James to bring that theatre from 1630 for Bullets Over Broadway down to 1303 for Side Show and 1367 for  On a Clear Day. 

The curtain pull seemed to help Sister Act stabilize after a rough end of Summer.. Only time will tell how much it helps out Fiddler...

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 2:47am

I think the choreography is the only positive. I don't think any of the other elements are that revolutionary. Especially not that awful scenic design.

 

[broadwayguy91]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 6:08am

hoganshero has a point. I was surprised to find out that this Fiddler production was not being produced by LCT (or at least co-produced, like the upcoming Falsettos revival)

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 6:29am

HogansHero said: "carnzee said: "Why is this? I mean I can guess why it might be foolish to revive Fiddler, but I wondered if you could elaborate. Also I really appreciate your posts, Hogan."

I think that large scale revivals are, in general, the stuff of non-profits (which essentially means LCT by default). I don't think there is enough interest to sustain a long enough run to make the lines cross (meaning break even). In this particular case, I think in light of the fairly recent revival of Fiddler, that interest was even weaker. I didn't dislike the production as some here and elsewhere did, but I also don't think it made a case for itself as a must see, nor can I envision what someone would have said about it beforehand to give anyone the impression it had that as a possibility. 

I still think that Fiddler had a fairly healthy run and I didn't really expect it to run any longer. This revval was better than the last revival.

One problem was putting it in such a big theatre, norevival will reach the dizzy heights of Chicago and Cabaret that both these run longer than the original and one of those still does brisk business. if the producers put this in the Music Box or Belasco, I am sure it would of run longer.

Not all shows will run several years.

Also I think this will get revived again in a decade or so, it's a New York staple.

"

 

[mamaleh]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 6:59am

I was lukewarm about seeing yet another FIDDLER revival, but when hubby said he wanted to rush it for us, I said OK.  Glad I did.  It was almost l like seeing it for the first time, that's how refreshing and galvanizing it was, from the inventive choreography to the performances, especially that of Danny Burstein.  If you haven't seen this production yet, definitely go. It's a surprising breath of fresh air.

[Dave13]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 7:42am

I was there last night for my second time seeing the show.  I enjoyed the show especially with Danny.  Although, I do agree this show would have been much more successful in a much smaller theater.  

 

Broadway Theater capacity 1761.  Richard Rogers theater capacity 1319.  Eugene O'Neill theater capacity 1102. Enough said.  

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 10:14am

The problem is the RR and O'Neill were already spoken for. No the problem is thinking you can take the same show, change stars and keep on reviving it over & over again. Todays millenials do not give a hoot about an old Jewish milkman. They simply went to the well once to often.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 10:24am

RoadGypsy2010 said: "Plus, It looks like they have decided to pull the Mezzanine curtain across to close off the Rear Mezz on Tues, Wed Mat, Wed Eve and Thurs performances beginning the Tuesday following Labor Day, 9/6. 

This essentially brings the Broadway Theatre to about 1320 seats (including what seems to be some consistently blocked side-orchestra locations- approx the last 4 seats on both the extreme right and left side aisles), down from the 1707 it currently has to sell.. I believe Sister Act did this as well when their weekly seat count changed from 14040 to 11944 after Labor Day 2011. 

Similar to Balcony getting closed at the St. James to bring that theatre from 1630 for Bullets Over Broadway down to 1303 for Side Show and 1367 for  On a Clear Day. 

The curtain pull seemed to help Sister Act stabilize after a rough end of Summer.. Only time will tell how much it helps out Fiddler...

 

"

How does putting less seats on sale lower their costs? Does their rent get lowered?

[Dave13]

Posted: 7/21/16 at 11:26am

Mr Roxy said: "The problem is the RR and O'Neill were already spoken for. No the problem is thinking you can take the same show, change stars and keep on reviving it over & over again. Todays millenials do not give a hoot about an old Jewish milkman. They simply went to the well once to often.

 

"

Not sure I agree.  If you look at Fiddlers grosses, they are averaging 74% attendance per show.  That's approximately 1300 seats.  They are still bringing in over $700k per week.  In a bigger theater, I am sure their rent and other expenses increase dramatically. If they were in a smaller theater, they would be selling out consistently and I am sure they would be doing much better financially.