Jesse Green: They Were Hits in London. Then They Got Smacked in New York.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/theater/cinderella-tammy-faye-london-ny-theater.html?unlocked_article_code=1.oE4.E4Qr.9oQKJqwhSbzN

But were they hits? Tammy Faye was more comparable to an off-Bwy run.

binau said: "Is there now a conspiracy to try and take the tony from Nicole and give it to Audra? Sorry but to suggest that Sunset’s and Nicole’s receptionin New York is anything like Cinderella or Tammy Faye is borderline slander. This is incompetence at best. After the Company review and now this, shame on you Jesse Green."

I think the only one trying to create a conspiracy is you?

The critics are not the nominators and voters, but it will indeed be a race for Best Actress. SUNSET also felt like an afterthought in this piece, and it's one of the rare shows mentioned here that's selling like gangbusters and also got a truly mixed critical response.

As he alludes to in the piece, the change of scale for TAMMY and the change of casting for BAD CIN undeniably hurt both shows. In London, BAD CIN had a strong central performance; on Broadway, even with other changes, it had a central performance that ranged from uninspired to bad depending on your opinion; the one thing driving the show was gone.

Sometimes, London is a better place for camp and kitsch than Broadway, stemming from the Panto tradition. Tickets are also cheaper and production costs are lower.

I don't believe there's any conspiracy but I do think including Sunset doesn't really work with the rest of his thesis. Every other show mentioned was mixed to negative or straight out panned and Sunset was mostly positive.

No conspiracy, the race will be close no matter which woman comes out on top. I'm team Nicole, but we'll see.

But I agree with the fact that Sunset Blvd does not belong in this write-up just because he didn't like it so much. Lumping in with those other two shows is laughable. It's no secret Jesse has lost a great deal of credibility starting with that heinous review he participated in for King Kong. Should have been disqualifying yet here we are.

I'm wondering about Broadway hits that have been UK flops. This article (which, as others have said, in the end seems to just be a cop out "meh, it's all personal taste") does mention that a number of straight plays have been hits in NY but not in London (though they mostly name playwrights and not which specific plays--I'd be curious which Terrence McNally and Wendy Wasserstein plays Green meant, for example.) But not musicals.

And I admit, the examples I can think of are old ones. Pippin, for example, in the Fosse production was a disastrous flop in London--so much so that Fosse said he had no interest in staging a production over there again (even if I don't think her personally staged Pippin there but could be wrong.) Which is one reason they didn't get the Fosse Chicago when it opened there.

I do think it's interesting that even 25 years ago I can remember hearing that the UK "got" Sondheim more than Broadway. Sondheim even spoke about why British audiences might take to him more. There was the Sondheim Society (still around, I think) etc. BUT... From a commercial stand point, anyway, this didn't hold much water--Sweeney Todd is well known to have flopped in the Prince original (despite having that great TV making of special as promo--maybe that didn't help.) Sunday in the Park got a non-commercial NT premier. Into the Woods DID get a West End premier and made it only to 197 performances. OK the revised Follies did run about 100 more performances than the Broadway original, but in Cam Mac's expensive production with a LOT of advertising, it still lost money. (And the other West End example--unless we go back to Forum--of a Sondheim premier, Passion, ran 232 performances, about 50 less than Broadway, but I suspect they never thought it would run much longer.) So if we compare the commercial Broadway performance of Sondheim musicals to the commercial London productions (I should also include Company which did very well when the Broadway cast was over for the first few months but when they were replaced, only lasted three more months, and A Little Night Music which was deemed a success but ran 200 performances less than Broadway's successful but short 18 month run...)

Anyone think of more recent examples? And I know it can be hard to compare sometimes as well as, though we all (well *I*) often think of those epic long run musicals in London, I think the model often works differently there--Shrek was seen as a success in London even though its initial West End run wasn't much longer than Broadway's in the end, but it filled its booking. (On the other hand Legally Blonde ran twice as long...)

EricMontreal22 said: " Anyone think of more recent examples? And I know it can be hard to compare sometimes as well as, though we all (well *I*) often think of those epic long run musicals in London, I think the model often works differently there--Shrek was seen as a success in London even though its initial West End run wasn't much longer than Broadway's in the end, but it filled its booking. (On the other hand Legally Blonde ran twice as long...)"

A Chorus Line.

Rent

DramaTeach said: "Didn’t read the article, but I think it’s a mix of cultural interests/disinterests and ticket prices. People are more willing to see shows when they’re not paying $300 for a ticket, and the UK has lower prices (yes, they’ve gone up, but not like ours). For example, at Tammy Faye, there’s excitement about Elton music starring an American theater actor and a well-reviewed actress, and for $60, it’s a nice night out. That’s all."

First of all, you should read the article because it's entirely about critical response, not financial performance - and some of those critical "hits" in London either lost money on both continents (Bad Cinderella) or were produced in a nonprofit in London (Tammy Faye).

To the rest of your point...

Price sensitivity is not the primary reason for most shows flopping. TAMMY FAYE had an average price of $63 to $76 for its whole run. They could have taken out ads saying "all seats $50" and they STILL wouldn't have sold enough to fill the house.

Updated On: 1/11/25 at 10:27 PM

Other Broadway hits that quickly bit the dust in London: Pippin, Whorehouse, Drood, Drowsy Chaperone, Spring Awakening,City of Angels,Grand Hotel,Ragtime, The Full Monty, Movin' Out and many others....

Jesse Green's article was a waste of time and completely pointless.

EricMontreal22 said: "Anyone think of more recent examples? And I know it can be hard to compare sometimes as well as, though we all (well *I*) often think of those epic long run musicals in London, I think the model often works differently there--Shrek was seen as a success in London even though its initial West End run wasn't much longer than Broadway's in the end, but it filled its booking. (On the other hand Legally Blonde ran twice as long...)"

I think "seen as" a success is an important thing to note, particularly when looking at economics. For instance, Avenue Q, which ran in London for five years, was still a commercial flop as it didn't even make half of its investment back; its dirt cheap tickets were the only way it could fill the house with teenage/20 something audiences but they didn't cover the costs. Another notable transfer flop was the Hair revival - even with the gimmick of the Broadway cast coming over, no-one cared. Shrek probably didn't make much money with that length of run, and I don't remember it getting particularly good reviews either. Legally, conversely, was carried by raves for its female leads, and Sheridan Smith's fame from Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps certainly helped.

These aren't really recent, though, we're talking 15 years (nearly 20 in Q's case) ago, and aside from Disney stuff just isn't transferring in the same way for us to make much of a judgment about it. Next to Normal, Great Comet, and Band's Visit are only getting staged thanks to the Donmar in non-replica productions (and Next to Normal flopped on West End transfer, and certainly didn't pick up Pulitzer-level reviews as it did on Broadway). In recent years, in terms of "critically well received" stuff that's been successfully transferred east, we're probably only looking at Come From Away...

I think it's potentially more interesting to look at the fact that producers believe they're savvy enough for some of those big critical hits to either take forever to get to the UK or don't come at all. A Gentleman's Guide To Love And Murder, for instance, seems like the sort of thing that should have been staged here by now, but is it not quite British enough? I can probably guess why Something Rotten only ever got a concert staging here in a similar vein. Actually, though... what has had strong critical notices in recent years that could be considered worth transferring? Kimberly Akimbo will end up at a Fringe venue or one of the non-profit houses as it's too non-commercial; The Outsiders has almost no cultural relevance in the UK so unless it's cast with hot boys with savvy social media accounts it's doomed; we've just had a suffragette musical about the British movement...

There has always been unspoken competition in any of the arts between London and New York, hence why you get the completely unexpected flops in both cities. With both cities dismissive of any imports, so really a bit jingoistic.. However a show can be so good it transcends any criticism thinking Six, Matilda and Billy Elliot on Broadway and Hairspray, Book of Mormon and Hamilton in the West End. That unspoken competition is also a force for good and sets the benchmark very high and ensures quality whether it is a show or venue. So long May it continues and in the meantime I will love my shows no matter where, bring them on!

“'Sunset Boulevard' [is one of] the shows warmly reviewed in London to be greeted on Broadway by a cold New York slap."

Seriously? Green is an idiot.