Sandy is behind the low attendance at SCANDALOUS?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 2:41pm

And the ANARCHIST?

I have been among a thimble-full of Kathie Lee Gifford defenders, for mysterious reasons (okay, she's as entitled as anyone to put in the work on a show, then find out how it lands and is received). But her TODAY announcement that her show was closing, though classy in tone and without bitterness, was built on an odd thesis: That Hurricane Sandy played a critical role in the early demise of her musical and other non-hits of this wildly erratic (euphemism) fall season on Broadway. SCANDALOUS and THE ANARCHIST have zero in common other than some of the worst press ever. And both are, uh, leaving the NY stage. Ahead of time? Somehow, that critical reception is ignored, and audience ... timidity? Fear of a wind called Maria? What? ... tied to a couple of cancelled performances all in one week kept people away? Sandy wasn't a terrorist attack. Are people supposedly failing to buy seats to those shows -- and CHAPLIN, also noted by Gifford -- because they fear more storms will block their reaching row H center? Shall we call them fair weather theatergoers? I suspect SCANDALOUS will turn up at Bob Jones University, Liberty, Brigham Young ... in theater departments, come rain or shine, where its earnestness and lack of daring will be savored, not judged.

Updated On: 12/6/12 at 02:41 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 3:16pm

Just received an e-mail. Buy one, get one free for the final 5 performances. Sandy still got em scared!

[newintown]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 3:27pm

She's one of those people (like Donald Trump) who have a tremendous need to be seen as SUCCESSFUL.

It must be the closest thing to impossible for her to realize and admit that she's just not a good writer.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 3:30pm

She was talking about her.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 3:45pm

This statement is a bit of a stretch.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 3:49pm

Bitch, please!

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 3:49pm

I think it's a bit of a stretch but I do actually think there's some truth to the statement. The show would've gotten poor reviews and closed early anyway, but if she was aiming for a bridge and tunnel audience, they absolutely would have trouble getting to the show.

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 4:01pm

She should be ashamed of herself.

Over Thanksgiving, you had 12 shows post figures of over a million dollars, playing to packed houses, while Scandalous sold 33% of its seats. Don't you dare blame the storm.

How disgusting can you be to evoke a tragedy as a reason your shi*ty Broadway musical is closing. Who does she think she is?!?

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 4:04pm

Well since 9/11 has been used frequently to talk about the demise of shows on Broadway in 2001, it's not entirely without precedent to say that something on the scale of Sandy also was damaging to business.

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 4:24pm

What is she supposed to say? That her show was lousy and it bombed? She's trying to exit the arena gracefully, saving a little face. Doesn't mean she doesn't see the truth. Just means she's human.

[eperkins]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 4:25pm

Then why is it no other shows were "damaged" by the storm?

[Marianne2]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 4:29pm

I'm going to agree that I think it is partially true. Six days after that storm I was very lucky to even find a way to get to the city to see the show I was planning to. There are still people out in Brooklyn and I think Staten Island with no power. I highly doubt those people are thinking about seeing a show now.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 4:33pm

There are certainly still people in Staten Island with no power and no heat, Marianne. There's also limited public transportation in and out of the city in the evening (the PATH is only running until 10 PM, for example). For a show that was probably aiming for the bridge and tunnel crowd, with no real solid hold on that audience yet (like something like Mamma Mia might have), a storm that did that much damage to the infrastructure in the area is devastating.

Like I said, the show still would've gotten bad reviews and probably would've shuttered early, but I do think that it might've held on a little longer had Sandy not hit the way it did.

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 4:34pm

I think The Performers mentioned the hurricane as well.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 4:48pm

9/11 is not comparable to Sandy in terms of impact on the city's future. Sandy was awful and many died and I don't mean to belittle the tragedy but the ripple effects of 9/11 lasted for years. Tourism was down throughout the city and people weren't going to shows. Tons of shows closed and New York felt like a ghost town for a while afterwards.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 4:59pm

Scandelous' ticket prices were in freefall since it started previews. I honestly don't think it could've held on much longer even if Sandy hadn't hit. Broadway was able to rally fairly quickly after the storm.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 5:02pm

Jeez, hurricane Sandy did not contribute to the short runs of either Scandalous or The Anarchist or Chaplin or The Performers.

Everyone knows that gay marriage is causing shows to close.

[eperkins]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 5:32pm

Actually, I think Gay Marriage is the thing that keeps Broadway running.

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 5:36pm

Sandy is an easy scapegoat. Henry Winkler was on MSNBC a few weeks ago and he said that Sandy singlehandedly closed The Performers. "We had to close because of the hit we took after Sandy" sounds better than "Our reviews stank and no one is coming."

[musicalman2]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 7:12pm

I do think it is fair to say that Sandy stopped a lot of the ticket buying momentum for Broadway. Whether that momentum was directed at Scandalous or The Performers, I don't know. But if you can't build an advance you have a problem.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 7:36pm

This would make sense if the show was doing well BEFORE Sandy or if other shows took a bit of a hit. But they haven't. Every other show is chugging along except for these two. Why? Because nobody wanted to see them.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 7:46pm

Of course she's gonna blame Sandy. It's a plausible scapegoat to anyone who doesn't closely follow Broadway grosses. But she should hardly "be ashamed of herself." She just can't bring herself to admit that the show flopped because no one wanted to see it. Hardly something to be "ashamed" of. It's not like she's pulling a Jeremy Piven or something.

Say what you will about the woman, but she's been working on this piece for a long, long time. Cut her a little slack for not exactly being ready to admit that SCANDALOUS flopped and is folding after a handful of performances because it A) got bad reviews B) got bad word of mouth and C) just wasn't something many people wanted to shell out $130 a ticket to see. I would imagine it's a bitter pill to swallow for her. But I'm sure she'll chase it with a box of Franzia.

Updated On: 12/6/12 at 07:46 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 9:01pm

Well, she should probably listen to someone who could tell her the truth. It's not like this show suddenly became terrible.

[Franciouqu]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 9:45pm

Why doesn't she just say its bad instead of the cyclone of lies

[morosco]

Posted: 12/6/12 at 9:55pm

I do admire Kathie Lee in the way that she didn't seem to want her own name plastered all over most promotional materials (maybe because everyone knew that Carolee would be the only one getting positive reviews). She tried to make Carolee the focus. At least that's what it seemed to me.