Story of My Life Logo- Page 3

[PRFRMR20]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 1:34am

Rentboy - These One-Man shows are starring a famous performer who audiences come specifically to see (i.e. Will Ferrell, Patinkin, Liza, Billy Crystal...) and plays are sold towards a very different audience than musicals and usually a two person play will have significantly lower running costs than a musical (musicians, mics/sound operator, etc.)

But, as I said on the other thread... ANYONE, answer the following question and I will stop!!!

"Name ONE Broadway show with a cast of 4 or less that has recouped (and not a one man show based on the star name [i.e. Liza, Mandy, etc])... I CAN'T "

And to answer someone's question about why I care, no I do not wish it will flop; however, I know that once it does everyone here will be "Oh, the economy is killin Bway" -or- "Oh, Bway is dying", but it is also stupid choices by the Producers to put a show on Broadway that I can easily see will be unsuccessful. So, I am just trying to lay down all of my thoughts before we hear the "tears" of BWWers when it closes.

[PRFRMR20]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 1:37am

Just to clarify, I am talking about a Broadway show of recent history... let's say last 25 years or so. Name ONE, go ahead!

[Elke]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 2:19am

As far as I know, there haven't been a lot of Broadway shows with casts of 4 or less. Off-Broadway, yes... But I really had trouble coming up with such small Broadway productions.

It's not of recent history, but in the sixties, there was a production of I Do! I Do! that did not flop. It had a cast of 2.

In recent history, Avenue Q comes to mind (more than 4, I know) but that's about it. Anyone else maybe?

[lmw8880]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 8:33am

I am hoping that this show is still playing come spring because I would love to see it and won't be able to see it until then.

About the logo, does anyone else think Will Chase looks very Matthew Perry-esque? That was my first thought when I saw the logo.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 9:08am

>Name ONE Broadway show with a cast of 4 or less that has recouped (and not a one man show based on the star name [i.e. Liza, Mandy, etc])... I CAN'T<

Doubt
Proof
Life x 3
Topdog/Underdog
Copenhagen
Freak

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/18/09 at 11:26am

I do not wish it will flop; however, I know that ... it is also stupid choices by the Producers to put a show on Broadway that I can easily see will be unsuccessful.

Not every show that opens on Broadway is put there just to make money. Of course producers hope that most commercial shows will, but if that were the only criteria we would never have gotten GREY GARDENS on Broadway. Or SUNDAY IN THE PARK Or PASSOION. Or CAROLINE. None of these made money, and all were considered long shots for pay off. But all of these enriched our theatrical landscape. If Broadway only put on shows that were deemed sure-fire crowd pleasers, it would become even more of a theme park than it is now.

All this underscores why you should not be getting too worked up over this one show. If it succeeds great, if it fails at least the producers will have tried to bring something to Broadway different than another YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN or WICKED.

There’s a bigger picture here. The economy sucks, but the theatre owners need product that can hopefully pay rent and freshen the Broadway scene. A producer can theoretically put a lot of money into one big show that will cost 15 million (or more) and have to run 60 weeks at capacity to recoup, or they can put money into a small show with a low weekly break-even that even if it fails will not cost them nearly as much. This show is booked into the Booth theatre, which has a cozy intimate (almost off-Broadway) feel. It's right in the heart of the theatre district, and even with an average ticket price of $50 they can break even selling 2/3 of the house.

You are also claiming that GLORY DAYS and [title of show] flopped because they were small shows. The size had nothing to do with it. GLORY DAYS from all reports was weak show. [title of show] had already burned through most of its audience while playing off Broadway. In fact they were selling the same number of seats each week at the Lyceum. That was a case where a very off-beat show with a limited audience and the producers could not find a way to bridge that into the larger more tourist oriented Broadway crowd.

There is also the prestige factor. Years ago as an early fan of the musicals of Sondheim (& company) I worried that the losses from FOLLIES and PACIFIC OVERTURES and MERRILY would eventually dry up the interest of commercial producers. In fact the reverse happened...people wanted to invest in these shows for the hope of being associated with a piece that becomes a modern classic. And that underscores my point from long ago - everyone on this board seems so preoccupied with whether a show is a HIT or a FLOP (meaning whether it makes money or not) when really, unless you are investing, you should be much more concerned with whether shows are (artistically) SUCCESSES or FAILURES (or as in most cases, somewhere in between.) A flop show that is an artistic success will go on to a long life in regional or community theatres. And THAT is ultimately much more important.

[Nick Plasia]

Posted: 1/19/09 at 1:24pm

You do yourself a disservice comparing this
show with Sunday, Follies, Grey Gardens, Caroline,
etc. Those shows told incredible stories.

This show, which I saw at Goodspeed, tells a very
unremarkable, teensy tiny story. With a teensy tiny
score.

It isn't about the size of the show, literally, it's
about the size of the story and the emotions. This one
belongs in a space no larger than the second stage at MTC.


Updated On: 1/19/09 at 01:24 PM

[Insider2]

Posted: 1/19/09 at 3:06pm

To clarify my original post, and in response to some of the comments here, I have, in fact, seen a previous version of this show, and therefore, I would be less worried about how many cast members are in the musical than the content of the musical itself.

This thing is the theatrical equivalent of reading a stack of Hallmark cards while listening to elevator muzak and eating a bowl of pancake syrup.In short, it is perfect for anyone who loves pure schmaltz.

[lstbutifulgrl2]

Posted: 1/19/09 at 6:36pm

This show, which I saw at Goodspeed, tells a very
unremarkable, teensy tiny story. With a teensy tiny
score.

I do not think this is fair to say. Just because you found the story to be unremarkable and teensy tiny, does not mean that it did not touch others. As stated numerous times, I think this show will find an audience. Do I believe it would have a longer run in an off-broadway house, yes. I'm just happy I get to see it again, whether it stays open for weeks, months or years.

(edited, because I can't spell today)

Updated On: 1/19/09 at 06:36 PM

[Actor 7]

Posted: 1/19/09 at 10:40pm

I have friends who saw The Story Of My Life in both Toronto and at Goodspeed. Their praise for this show was very high and these friends see a great many plays and musicals on Broadway and off-Broadway. They all said the score was quite beautiful and they had many fine things to say about the book. I hope this show enjoys both critical praise and audience enthusiasm. I trust the opinions of my friends who have seen it and I hope it is given a fair chance to gain an audience!

[Insider2]

Posted: 1/20/09 at 1:19pm

Just one more note on this. In response to PRFRMR20's post above, asking if there have been any two-character Broadway musicals that have recouped, I believe that THEY'RE PLAYING OUR SONG (Marvin Hamlisch/Carole Bayer Sager/Neil Simon) was two characters, and that played more than 1,000 performances in its initial run. So, I assume that recouped since it ran more than 2 years, but I could be mistaken.

[Attendthetale331]

Posted: 1/21/09 at 2:14pm

It looks a lot like the old Lifetime logo....




Television for Women.

Updated On: 1/21/09 at 02:14 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/21/09 at 2:36pm

I haven't seen the show. I hope it is successful and delights audiences. That said, the marquee design just simply isn't very good. The photographs aren't very flattering (they look sort of insane), too much white, and the font and colors are rather dull and look too much like the opening credits of a soap opera. I'm not saying that to be bitchy, it's just my honest first impression.

[Paul W. Thompson]

Posted: 1/21/09 at 11:03pm

They were loading in the lighting equipment when I passed by this afternoon. How exciting! A sign of life for the fabulous invalid. And with not too many shows running right now it might make a go of it, if it gets good word of mouth.

With two attractive leads and a sleek look and the name Richard Maltby, Jr. involved, it just might work. I wish them all the best, and I hope it is still running the next time I am in town!

[PRFRMR20]

Posted: 1/22/09 at 12:45am

First of all, in response to frontrowcentre2-
THANK YOU for a very, very thoughtful and intelligent response. Sorry I haven't been able to write back sooner, I have been involved with a reading that I have been rehearsing 10-6 since the weekend and had two shows today, but now have some time to respond.

First, regarding "unless you are investing"... as ambitious as this may sound I would like to get into Producing and might be caught up in my personal ideas and views of where I stand regarding this show that I want to make them verbal. You are 100% correct that the financial success and failure of this show won't affect me. However, regarding the artistic success, I do believe that if this show does (hypothetically) become another Glory Days or even to use your example Grey Gardens, if it financially fails on Broadway it won't last long enough to 1. be seen by those who would be affected by its "art" or interested in continuing with there own production and 2. it won't be able to get the acclaim of its artistic capabilities. I believe a critical acclaimed longer run Off-Broadway would provide a better artistic outlet for a small show over a short, if not miniscule, run on Bway.

As you said, TOS was playing towards a basically equal audience at the Lyceum as it was Off-Bway. So for the same amount of ticket sales (with a somewhat increase in price, though most TOS audience members probably used the various discount possibilites) the Producers now had the significantly higher theatre rental costs, higher Actor salaries (due to Equity rules), higher and more stagehand/crew costs, advertising/maintenance, etc. If the Producers kept it at the Vineyard, it might have run for longer and spread to a larger audience over time...

You mention the current economy and the theory of putting in less money into a show... which I agree with! However, there is a difference betwen SITPWG and SOML. As people have mentioned here the latter is a 90 minute musical (that is over $1 a minute) with a 2 person cast and a likely minimal set. Sunday, on the other hand, was a LONG two act musical with a wonderful and creative set and a core ensemble cast that made it worth the money. As you also seem to agree, the main Broadway audience are the tourists and I can't see them paying full price (if not ~$60) for a 90 minute musical that they won't relate to or be wowed by (by it's entire theatrical production quality, not just artistic value).

I will conclude that I guess we will wait and see. I honestly wish it all the best (I happen to have been rehearsing and performing the reading next to Story of My Life rehearsals at Chelsea Studios). However, unfortunately, my business mind as well as my artistic aspirations can't see a positive outcome for what could have been if different producing choices were made (i.e. Off-Bway). I am very excited to hear people's thoughts once it starts previews... and hope that if it doesn't succeed, people will realize that it is more due to poor business decisions than the current economy. SOML, Good Luck!

----------

To Smaxie and Insider2:

Smaxie, when I saw that you posted, I was excited and presumed you would name a show that fell under my criteria. You did; however, I had said in the other thread and thought it was intended here (which I see that it wasn't) that I was referring solely to musicals. Unfortunately, you named all straight plays and as I mentioned before, in my opinion plays have a very different audience/market and theatrical qualifications. So to clarify, I am looking for a musical.

Insider2: They're... Song opened in 1979 which was 30 years ago (which is out of the 25 year limit I asked). Granted it is close, though it also starred Robert Klein (known for his comedy) and Lucie Arnaz (known for her parents ). I think it is a very valid answer and I would put it right on the line... because I think it opened in a significantly different theatrical and economic time (which is why I said recent). So, I still don't think that is answer but VERY close... :P

[PRFRMR20]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 5:16pm

So I'm BUMPing because:
1) I wrote a novel of a post and had no responses and wanted to get it "out there" again. :)
2) This was posted on Broadway.com (http://www.broadway.com/Boomtown-The-Story-of-My-Life/broadway_video/5019910) I liked the old B&W look and vintage feel for the Guys and Dolls video, but this made absolutely no sense and the announcer guy was just annoying!

[Actor 7]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:55pm

Many thanks for the "boomtown STORY OF MY LIFE" video link. I agree with you, it was nicely done in the black & white format. I hope this show is given a fair chance because so many people I know on the West Coast have such fine things to say about its' book and score. I just hope it can get enough audience to stay open for at least the period of summer 2009 because so many people go to NYC during the warmer weather and I think this show may be a real winner. Let's hope it get a fair shake because I think it deserves it.