Is It Ever OK to Cancel a Show If the Audience is Too Small?- Page 2

[iheartamc10]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 10:26pm

This may be just or an equity regional theatre... but when I worked at one, there had to be 3x as many audience members as actors on stage (there always were..) but again, this could just be regionally.

[DirectorHaley]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 11:54pm

I worked in a theatre for a show that had a long-ish run, and one night they had like 15 people in a house for 500, and they gave everyone tickets to another performance... the last show I directed had a week-long run, and one matinee had really low attendance. We never would've cancelled though- I just went backstage and was like "umm, there's hardly anyone here... but give them the best performance you have". And because it was a ridiculous show in a small house, they just went nuts. It did feel informal, but everyone had fun. The actors got practice and the audience got what they paid for. In those kinds of Off-Broadway kinds of things, I think it can still work just fine.

[kyle.]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 12:00am

While doing Jack and the Beanstalk at a community theatre in 1998, we performed to a house of 2. My dad and my best friend's friend. The house sat about 50. Horrifying at the time. Funny as hell to look back on.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 2:22am

I worked at the beginning of my career with the touring company of Second City. That's six (sometimes five people. On ocassion, the cast outnumbered the audience and someone would say "Laugh damn it, we outnumber you and we're ready for a fight."

Got a good laugh.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 2:40am

I think it really depends on the show.

A show like WICKED would not work without a good 100 (or even 200) people in the audience.

[jarred03]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 3:40am

Are you guys crazy? IT IS NEVER OKAY TO CANCEL A SHOW, especially based on attendance. No show needs alot of audience members. Wicked does not need 100 people. I would be perfectly happy watching the show all by myself. I've played a show of 8 before and it went amazingly, the audience loved and the actors loved it, because heres the simple truth, YOU SHOULD GIVE 150% WHETHER THEIR ARE 10 PEOPLE OR 1000 PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE! It's that simple. There's no audience during run-throughs, so why is it all of a sudden so important to have a big one once the show starts. If you care about the audience size then your not a real actor, your just a diva.

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 6:21am

I think you're not considering the nature of the show by saying that, jarred.

If I was doing a Sarah Kane play like "Blasted" or "Cleansed", for example, it would be a lot more comfortable to have no audience than two old ladies in the house... Or imagine a show that relies heavily on audience participation- the experience would not be the same with very few people.

It really depends on the situation, much more than the numbers.

Updated On: 10/3/06 at 06:21 AM

Posted: 10/3/06 at 8:41am

In the late 1950s I saw the first matinee after the opening night in NYC of an import called Patate, atarring Tom Ewell. I spotted only 3 other people in the audience that afternoon. The cast performed this comedy as if the theatre were full. True professionals. The show closed that Saturday night.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 9:13am

As an audience member, if I plan my evening around the performance AND travel to the theatre to find out the show is cancelled, who's to say I would want to go back? That would have to be one heck of a performance to get me to give it a round two.

[Enjolras77]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 9:50am

It is a very sticky subject with no clear cut answer..

I have been working for professional arts organizations for the past couple of years and there have been several occasions where a show has been cancelled due to lack of ticket sales. Of course, this is due to the fact that with the lack of funding, many of these organizations can't afford to lose money on a show. It is also not usually the presenting theatre who cancels, but the actual performing group. They check the daily sales records and if it looks like the show will be a big financial failure they will cancel rather than risk a huge loss. Last year we had a show booked into a 2,500 seat theatre and a week prior to the show only 300 tickets had been sold. The performer decided to back out of their commitment rather than go on and lose money.

In commercial theatre it is all about money, so of course if it means cutting losses then the powers that be will pull the plug. In amateur or educational productions I don't think a show should be cancelled for lack of audience. Most of the time these organizations have paid for the rights up front (or mostly up front) for a certain number of performances and I am not sure how easy it would be to get any of it refunded if they decided to cancel for lack of ticket sales. I think it is also unfair to performers who have put in time excess of their day jobs, who are performing for nothing more than a love of theatre, to have a production they have put in many nights in row to prepare for cancelled.

I volunteered at a community theatre production of Lippa's John and Jen once and the audience barely outnumbered THAT cast on stage -- but the show went on!

[OtherDaryl]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 10:37pm

The rule of thumb for most non-Equity theatres I've worked with was that there had to be more people in the audience than in the cast. There was the Medea I directed where an influential Chicago critic showed up with no notice. Like ten people otherwise in a 200 seat theatre because of the weather. The critic had, I swear, some terminal coughing disease, but we went on anyway, just because he was there. We'd have been better off not. He didn't mention us in his book, either.

Of course, once, in Stock, some volunteer neglected to promote an opening night correctly and well, nobody came. Nada. Zero. Since we had already gotten into some very elaborate costumes and makeup we still performed, using it as a full dress-tech, which was a luxury as we'd not had one yet.

[Burning_Oasis]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 11:20pm

"a comedy or big action piece that requires audiences laughing and participating needs a lot of noise and energy."


A good actor should never be intimidated by lack of laughs or energy.

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 10/3/06 at 11:59pm

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

No

[JOJO249]

Posted: 10/4/06 at 12:28am

Well as a prodcuer of shows I think you should never cancel a show due to the fact that your house is too small. I have produced shows on a small scale ane oncee we had a single person show up for a show I produced during a very well attended long run and we still did the show and the cast gave it 100%. I think doing a show for a sell out crowd or a small group of people is truly a learning experience and what live theater is about

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 10/4/06 at 3:49am

If it is an equity house, the answer is no. The actor is hired to do X number of performances and is contractualy obliged to do them no matter the house size. Jenn Thompson, who directed one of the fringe festival plays this year, did The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe in the early summer and on her saturday matinee only 25 people showed up, she had to give it her all anyway, and did damn good despite the small and quiet house.

[AugustBurns2]

Posted: 10/4/06 at 1:46pm

I have personally performed in a play to 6 people in a theater that held 502 seats. It was strange, yes, but we did it.

The next year, I wrote, directed, and acted in a play. On a matinee performance on a Saturday afternoon, we performed for an audience of 6 people (again), but this time in a conference room that we used as a theater. We were a cast of 10. One of the 6 people included my mother!!! But it was a good dress rehearsal because we performed to a sold out house that night!

I am currently in another show. Last Sunday's matinee had a dramatic drop off in attendance in comparison to the Friday and Saturday audiences. One of the actors complained that he didn’t want to perform in front of such a small number of people. I think he was kidding. But I didn’t care! Plus, the audience was fun. This one woman gasped during a scene that made my day. Also, people seemed to be really in the show compared to our Saturday night audience. Plus, I have performed in shows at this school before and know that the Sunday matinees draw small audiences.

So, my conclusion – the show must go on no matter how many people are in the audience!

Posted: 10/4/06 at 2:12pm

WHen I was in Oh Calcutta, we had more people onstage than we had some nights at the old Edison Theater. We always performed because that's what were were paid to do.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 10/4/06 at 2:19pm

I did a performance one night that had two tickets sold at the places call. The audience was to be my dad and his wife. The cast asked if they could come back the next night, but, alas, as they had traveled from out of town and had plans the next night, that was not possible.

When the show started, I was startled to find a third person in the house. Who was it?!?

The man I was dating! Needless to say, the rest of the cast was not amused.

[Dover]

Posted: 10/4/06 at 9:12pm

About five years ago I was doing an Off-Off-Broadway show which we knew was lightly sold for the first week of our two-week run, and one night at our 8:00 curtain time, there were ZERO people in the house. I paced around in the lobby... 8:02, ZERO people. I start thinking out loud to the house manager and sound person about exactly when and how I should approach the cast with this information. I decided to ask them if they'd like to stay and we'd just run the show and go home (it could have used a little work), but just then, three people showed up. It's now about 8:05 and the box office was just about to give up and close. Then as those three people were buying tickets, two more showed up! And one of them had to go to the bathroom, and asked if he'd miss the start of the show. I said I thought we could hold for him. ; )

Ever since then I've been thrilled to have five people in an audience, and I hope I never have to approach a cast with the fact that NOBODY has come to see the show.

[lfae]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 5:19am

millie_dillmount, I can't remember the exact title of the show but it started "From Frying Pan to Fire" and I *think* the rest was, "From Animal to Human Holocaust" (and there may have been more after that still) - it was a dark, satirical, political type of thing, a musical, done for Fringe I think...I didn't see it myself - the night I was supposed to go but then was feeling too crap to pull myself out of the house was that night they only had two people!

[DG]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 5:35am

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

I'll keep it simple.

NO.

Ever.

For any reason.

And if you don't get that, you shouldn't be doing theatre - at least not where I might encounter you.

[Demitri2]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 8:15pm

Forgive me if someone else already posted this:

There's a segment on the tribute to "The Fantasticks" DVD that addresses this question. Tom Jones mentions that although it ended up holding the record as the longest running Off- Broadway show, there were nights when only a handful of people were in the audience. "Once", Jones states, "there was only one man who showed up and we asked him if he would kindly switch his ticket for another evening to which he replied, ABSOLUTELY NOT!" The show went on that evening.

Posted: 10/6/06 at 8:30pm

I've never been in anything more than high school and community productions so far, but I feel you should'nt cancel a show if the audience is too small or even non-existent. Even the most well put together shows need work and that small audience or non-existence audience could be a night where you could really put you're all in for when the bigger audience arrives.

On Broadway, obviously its much different. If you have a small audience not only does it not look good on the attendance and you'd be losing money, but it'd be splattered all over here that they you were closing.

I feel if you an actor, you can act to anyone and for anyone. You could act on stage for a chair. I think if you truly love acting- audience or not- the show ALWAYS goes on.

[Broadway Baby4]

Posted: 10/6/06 at 9:45pm

You should never, EVER, cancel a production based on the size of the audience.

First of all, they are paying customers who have probably been looking forward to seeing whatever it is they are seeing.

And Second, if you are a true actor you should love to perform no matter what.

The show must go on!! :)

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 10/7/06 at 12:24am

this is a very interesting issue to consider. I used to perform a lot but haven't been onstage in over 3 years now. As a general rule, I don't believe a show should ever be cancelled due to a small audience- but there are always exceptions. If it comes down to economics and it somehow is more profitable to simply cancel, then by all means cancel. If it is a question of subject matter and it is a piece that would be uncomfortable to perform for only a few people, then there's a decision to be made. I like the idea of going out and asking the audience if they would like the show to go on. From an actor's standpoint, the show should always go on. I performed in a production of Jones/Schmidt's "Celebration" which was a bad show to begin with, and it often played to houses of less than 10. It was pretty uncomfortable when it came to the "sex" scene toward the end, but it made me pretty fearless in my later performances. Playing to an empty house is great rehearsal, and playing to a small house is great experience. But if it is a case where it might alienate or make uncomfortable the people who are watching, then a cancellation is easily justified. Theatre doesn't abide by any sort of sacred dogma, and cancelling a show shouldn't indicate any sort of betrayal. It all comes down to what is best for the people involved on a given night.