Is It Ever OK to Cancel a Show If the Audience is Too Small?

Well, more than likely you've already paid the actors to be there and you've already paid the rent on the theater, and all the musicians are already there, etc. So, it would just make sense to go on with the performance as scheduled. There's no sense in sending everyone home after they've already gotten into all the makeup and whatnot. It's just a waste of makeup and people's time. They came to see a show, so give them a show.

Is it a violation of what the theatre is supposed to be about?

Absolutely not. It's impossible to truly define what theatre is "supposed to be about". It's about different things for different people.

This is a multi-layered question. In terms of school level productions there has to be some awareness of the work that the kids put into the show. Since they aren't being paid I would feel a bit odd about cancelling performances for them. Most of the ticket sales for a performance at this level goes to paying the actual royalty and production costs and in the unlikely event of a profit it usually goes into the theatre department's budge for future productions.

On a community theatre level I think it has to be more of a business decision. If actors are contracted, if they are equity - productions costs/theatrical space have already been paid for etc...I would say the show should probably go on just from business perspective unless the projected ticket sales doesn't cover the production costs and some out clause was negotiated in the performers contract.

If it's open contracts that depends on production dates and money will be lost to perform to near empty houses then I have no problem cancelling a show.

You seems to be asking this question from the perspective of "the spirit of the show must go on" yet it seems that you are referring to amateur performers which makes it a bit different of a beast altogether.

I don't feel that actors, directors, producers etc "owe anything" to the "ideals of theatre" or any other mantra that can't universally be defined.

Assuming we are talking just individual performances of a run rather than the entire run itself, I think it would be in poor taste to cancel a show after some patrons have already made the trip to the show unless it was for a specific reason like health etc. As a theatregoer, I'd be pretty irritated if I made the trip to a theatre and was told the show wouldn't be performed because they didn't sell enough tickets. If they contacted me a day or two before my ticketed date, it wouldn't bother me as much.

In order to comment on the specific circumstance that you are asking about we'd need more details.

Updated On: 10/2/06 at 07:22 PM

I certainly have been in the audience on occasions when there were huge numbers of empty seats. It is very uncomfortable, and when the performance is intended to be an "event"--even more so. One's feelings of empathy for the performers are so great--they must be so embarassed, the evening is such a failure etc.--that it's hard to imagine how the performance can go on.

To a greater or lesser degree, however, once the lights go down and the show begins, I have always been glad that I saw the show. I guess it depends upon the chemistry of the evening.

The least sucessful was last year's 'Broadway Diva Christmas', which we saw on December 31st. The show was written and performed as a joyful holiday celebration--by New Year's Eve day, XMas songs are tired and worn out, and who the Heck buys a ticket for a Xmas show after Xmas? The audience was VERY sparse, and the whole thing felt like a mistake. Once the cast got going, though, it was enjoyable, although there were definitely moments where a raucous crowd filled with holiday cheer was supposed to join in the fun....and it didn't happen.

I was in the audience for one of Liza's Holiday shows at Town Hall, (2003?) and it was (maybe) 1/3 full. Ushers kept telling us that the producers were "inviting" us to move up, until they had packed the front/center of the theatre. The lights went down, Liza came out, and we all learned about Star Power--she sang like they were hanging off the rafters; I still remember it as an exhilarating evening.

Similarly, I saw 'Dirty Blond' at the very end of its run in London, and there were very few of us. Once again, once the show began, Claudia Shear and Kevin Chamberlin were so compelling that the "real" world absolutely disapppeared.

I think for a serious performer, those are the nights that test your mettle, develop your muscle and teach you to "sell" your performance, no matter what. I would also imagine it as an opportunity to take some chances with your performance--what have you got to lose?

---

Updated On: 10/2/06 at 07:45 PM

There is some sort of theatre "rule", that if there is more performers onstage than there is in the audience, then it's understandable to cancel that performance... but of course it depends a lot on the numbers on both sides.

I went once to a show at a Fringe, when there was me and another lady only.
The play dealt with graphic subject matter, so I understand how uncomfortable it would have been to perform such show for the both of us, so they cancelled the show.

It all really depends.

---

I don't think that the show should be canceled. I do believe that the audience should be given the option to get their money back to attend another performance it they choose to do so, because they'd feel awkward sitting in a house with so few people.

Re: lfae

What show was this and what was it for?

---

I've been in those audiences, and I can tell you that it's a mixed bag: sometimes, you feel freer to laugh and applaud, sometimes you sit there embarrassed for everyone involved. But I wouldnt cancel a performance just because there were a half dozen people sitting there watching. Just do it. Call it a pick up rehearsal if you need that kind of motivation, but just freaking do it.

---

one time i went to a karen finley performance & there were only about 25 people in the audience. it was ticketed seating, so we were all scattered throughout the theater.
she called us all down to fill the first two rows & it was a beautiful powerful show.
ive seen her other times & its always been a fantastic & intense experience, but because she acknowledged the low turnout & worked with it, it made us all felt like were in it together.

A few years ago, there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle by the theater critic about awkward occasions when he had been the only person to show up for a performance, and what had happened at those times. The theater and actors didn't necessarily know that he was a critic, and I think some performances were cancelled and others weren't. If anyone can find it online, it would be a good link for this thread.

I think that if an audience (of even one) has shown up for your show, the show goes on. I think that it can be modified, in some way acknowledging low attendence, which is probably easier to do in smaller, fringier (is that a word?) productions.

I have been to at least a handful of performances at which the cast outnumbered the audience....I have seen it happen at Improv theater stuff a couple of times. Also a really terrific local production of Oklahoma....

---

I, like blaxx thought there was some Equity ruling that said if the cast is larger than the audience it is permissable to cancel the show.

I saw HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH here in Melbourne at the weekend and while the show was good I was amongst 37 in a house that holds 900. It was uncomfortable when lights moved out to the auditorium and you could see all those empty seats.

When I ran a non-Equity theater, we had a whopping 4 people one night for our comedy God's Favorite. We asked them if they might feel a bit uncomfortable being the only ones there and asked if they wanted to stay or come back another night. They were game, as were those of us in the cast and it turned out to be one of the best shows of the run. They foursome was really into it and enjoyed it and we enjoyed them tremendously.