RING OF FIRE to close April 30 — Page 2

I don't think there is a solution. Tourists now drive the market and when they come into town on vacation, they want to be entertained and have little interest in seeing new, "different" or challenging works of theatre. They want fun musicals or they want to see a movie star in a play. That's it. You won't find them checking out the new Genet production at Cocteau Rep downtown or something like The Guardians at Culture Project. The reality is that new and innovative work is now the the province of the not-for-profit realm which because of subscriber bases can take more risks than Broadway ever can and mount shows that are different from the usual mainstream fare -- and even they rarely produce truly first rate new work. In addition, FOR-profit commercial Off-Broadway can't successfully produce works that aren't "safe" anymore.

Tourists are 75% of the audience for Broadway (as recent as 25 years ago, they were only about 30%, with 70% being locals -- including regular serious theatregoers) and that's not going to change. It's nice to see nonmusical plays like The History Boys and Lieutenant of the Inishmore (and Stuff Happens, another British play, in the midst of a soldout run at The Public) being so well-received and finding audiences. But, great as they are, they came to the US after having had long acclaimed runs in London (so there was much less risk on the part of their US producers). They also both came out of the subsidized institutional theatre of Great Britain. It'd be nice for new American works to be similarly nurtured and supported and then eventually once they're ready be given the opportunity at the larger stages of Broadway -- and find an audience once they get there.

If we in America don't have new plays of comparable quality (as the recent "No Award" from the Pulitzers seems to indicate) and/or that are capable of being smart and well-written AND audience-pleasing then there's something very wrong going on. It's sad that not only do our not-for-profit institutional theatres seem to be having trouble of helping artists create first-rate new work, but that when a new intelligent work does emerge, that there doesn't seem to be an audience out there anymore to support it.

I don't have an answer.

---

What bothers me is: the fact that we have lost our local base of serious theatre goers. Yes, there isn't an answer to this dilemma.

I'm with Margo.

I'm sick of the bullsh*t surrounding WELL. Kron has crafted a genius, beautiful piece and I'm not in any hurry to see it go. I think it something the world needs to see.

---

My issue was with the phraseology "I HOPE that they pull the plug" and I stand by my statement that HOPING for any show to close -- including Ring of Fire or any other -- is a little sick, especially when no other show interested in going into that theatre. And even if there is another show, I think that expressing such a sentiment is uncalled for.

And it's not just WELL. I said the same thing when everyone wanted to push GEM OF THE OCEAN out of the Walter Kerr, so that DOUBT could take over. GEM was a brilliant play and a tremendous production and it struck me as short-sighted for people to wish it gone, just because another play wanted the space (DOUBT was obviously going to come to Broadway very soon anyway, whether it was to the Kerr or another theatre and it was unnecessary to send the buzzards circling around GEM hoping for a premature closing).

I also said the same thing when everyone was celebrating the PRODUCERS seasonal dip in numbers and people were hoping and praying it would close. I just find that that sort of mindset is ghoulish, juvenile and insensitive to the many people a closing impacts. No we don't need more bad shows on Broadway, but if a show is clearly still entertaining to people and is paying its bills, why wish it ill?

I personally am not the biggest fan of RENT -- have you ever heard me expressing a HOPE that it would close and give another show a shot at playing the Nederlander? No, of course not. Such a hope or wish is anathema to me.

And I said nothing about the bravery or commitment of the producers of HISTORY BOYS, FESTEN or any other show from Britain. I was merely commenting that it would appear that their internal play development process is apparently doing better than ours these days since so few new American plays in recent years have achieved a similar level of artistry. And I refer not only to the plays that transferred here to the US, but also to more than a dozen other first rate new works that have played at the National, the Royal Court and other subsidized theatre in the UK and haven't made it over here yet. I see practically every new play on and off Broadway every year and there has been a noticeable drop in quality and accomplishment in the new American works being produced by the regional houses and not-for-profit companies around the country in the last few years.

For very DOUBT, there are a hundred plays that were produced that weren't ready, needed another draft or two or just plain needed to have been nurtured better in the developmental process. This apparently is happening in the UK (not to say they don't have their share of flops and underwritten plays) -- it's not happening here as of late. And you can blame the fact that more and more writers are quitting theatre and going for the more lucrative world of Hollywood film and tv, but whatever the reason, it's shocking what passes for a produceable play in a major theatres in this country these days.

The failure of WELL -- and GEM and THE GOAT (which won the Tony, but still flopped) and FROZEN and IAMOW (which incidentally never recouped) -- points to isssues much larger and deeper and more ominous than whether you or some others liked the play or not (because, despite the detractors -- and EVERY show has detractors -- there still should have been enough audience out there to still support it). It represents the ongoing problem that serious theatre is having in this country trying to find an audience, even when the reviews are across the board raves. THAT'S why I didn't care for someone expressing HOPE that the show would close. In this trecherous environment for new nonmusical work where few new plays are produced on the Broadway level and only a tiny percentage of them succeed, any show that attempts to be challenging and innovative should be saluted, not belittled and dismissed.

---

Updated On: 4/26/06 at 02:05 PM

I should say whoever called other people sick simply because they don't do as what she wish them to do is sick, indeed.

Calvin....did you blow it on 'Who will play the Little Mermaid?'

---

Not sure, Margo, if those ideas (re: theatre discounts for new yorker's) would work, but it sure sounds like a great idea. I'm all for it!

---

I detested WELL. Whenever I passed by the theater, I heard people talking about how horrible they thought it was. It never should have transferred. However, it gave jobs to people who need them. And for that, it should be applauded.

I thought Ring of Fire was far from genious, but it was fun in the same way Mamma Mia was. It was like watching the Country Bear Jamboree. Should people have to pay $111 to see it? They certainly pay close to it to get into Disney World, for the Jamboree. The cast is great. Too bad.

I absolutely think that tickets should be made available to local residents at discounted prices.

You'll laugh at the analogy, but that's exactly what they offer at Disneyland to California residents, and it's been a brilliant plan. The locals are what keep the park going in the off season months.

Great idea, Margo.

Bryan, buy a Johnny Cast album.

I like the idea of giving New Yorkers discounts. It may give them some sort of incentive to go see shows they would not normally see, or are a littly iffy about. Not sure how it would work with producers though. It seems like they can't really discount them too heavly or else they'll be loosing money.