Straight Plays On Broadway - THE END (Literally!)- Page 2

[Joshua488]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:06pm

Yay, Margo! I like you!

I don't feel like I'm fighting a war alone anymore.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:07pm

Margo and Joshua, you both said it beautifully.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:09pm

Thanks, mef!

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:22pm

Well, one of my college roomates said it best I think...

"If I'm going to pay 80 bucks for two hours of entertainment, there better be some damn sparkle and dancing!"

Lets be honest: Theatre tickets are expensive, and some people feel like they get "more for their money" with a big budget musical....

not my opinion, but a theory.

[magruder]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:24pm

Both Proof and Tale of the Allergist's Wife recouped in approximately three to four months.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:28pm

For $80-$90, I want to see something that is fulfilling and makes me use my head.

I find that in plays more often than musicals.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:53pm

Thanks, all. Please remember to include or PM your age, otherwise I am unable to use your words for research!

Something we haven't really mentioned is the "golden age" where straight plays WERE the mecca of Broadway. I have seen the documentary BROADWAY: THE GOLDEN AGE and several plays were mentioned, along with praise for performances.

But WHAT HAPPENED that the musical took over? Did it happen with HAIR and rock music moving in to Broadway?

[thepinterpause]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 7:26pm

Remember that the play form has been around for thousands of years, while the musical is less than a century old. Storytelling, the oldest of all the arts, has taken on lots of forms in history. The musical's just the latest.

The Rock musical style has infiltrated Broadway, and this may partly account for the appeal of musicals, but the genre is still evolving. We have yet to see a hip-hop musical, but it could very well be on it's way. I think that would be fresh and exciting, but a straight dramatic play is still, to me, the ultimate mode of theatrical expression.

[Plum]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 7:41pm

The thing is, big musicals are highly associated with Broadway, it only because few other places have the theater spaces and community to continually support such shows. When tourists go to New York, they want to get something strongly associated with Broadway. So they choose musicals. Plays aren't so localized, you know? So I guess you could say the downfall of straight plays on Broadway is directly tied with the rise of the proportion of audience that's tourists.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 1:08am

FYI: My observation was just that, an observation as to why there are fewer plays produced. I should have included "the general public" or "the masses" in my assesment that plays don't offer enough to take home for them. I heartily agree that there is much to take from a play, but those of us who can do that, have the desire to analize it, consume it, and appreciate all the nuances of great story telling, etc. are in the minority. Sadly, most Broadway theater patrons are out of towners, looking for that big thrill that usually translates into applause for the moving barracade or chandelier and wouldn't know a brilliant monologue if it rolled up a playbill and smacked em over the head.

Sad though it is. I used to run a theater in Burbank. Couldn't give tickets away to most of our well-produced (critcally praised) and populist plays (Neil Simon, Ackbourn, etc)...'sellable brand name' plays to put the butts in the seats and get the company up and running. Always had great success with musicals, even musical reviews. They are just so darn costly.

[Over_the_Moon]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 1:15am

Everyone enjoys a good musical. Sometimes it's harder to enjoy a play. If a musical has one bad actor, the show can still work around them, but a bad actor can kill a play.

<- 16

[tpdc]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 1:23am

I think the reason for the low grosses for the current plays on Broadway is mostly due to that other than PILLOWMAN, DEMOCRACY and DOUBT, they are revivals that people have seen before or can easily get on DVD. The other reason is the expensive ticket price. I think consumers don't rush out to see a non musical for $90. At a play, people don't want to sit far away. But if you would take a balcony seat and it's $65, you might as well buy the DVD of VIRGINIA WOOLF, STEEL MAGNOLIAS, STREETCAR or ON GOLDEN POND for $20 or less. Or you can see if from a great seat at a regional theater for $35 and it might be better than what you'd see now on Broadway.

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 12:26pm

Another reason why I prefer to see Musicals on Broadway than some straight plays is because you are guaranteed in a musical not to be able to see a better production and performances in an amateur theater.

I don't have that guarantee for a straight play. I just saw Rebecca Gayheart in Steel Magnolias. My friends and I listed off a dozen actresses we knew in New hampshire community theater who could have done a better job. The single best acting perfomance I have seen in any level of theater was a community theater production of Butterflies are Free in Maynard MA.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 3:46pm

I think there are some very valid points here. I for one happen to agree with the notion that straight plays on broadway are dying. True, this year is an exception, though most of the plays this season are revivals with built-in fan bases. Sure, the work of Tennessee Williams is gracing the great whit way again. But only in the forms of Glass Menagerie and Streetcar, his two most bankable shows. I doubt a revival of Vieux Carre or Orpheus Descending will see any light on Broadway again. or take Mammet--Theyre doing Glengarry. His most bankable show. Where is his new play "Romance" being performed? Nicely settled Off-Broadway at Atlantic. Or Albee, with his most bankable--Virginia Woolf. I'm not saying these shows are unworthy of revivals. I'm just making the point that today's Broadway is ENTIRELY based on what will make the most money. new shows pose risks today that producers just arent willing to make when it comes to shelling out millions of dollars that they are likely never to make back. And as for revivals, all we're basically getting are the bankable hits. So yes, i would agree--the straight play is dying on broadway. Broadway is no longer the place for artistic advencement of our culture, but rather a theme park filled with familiar songs, sights and gags that neither pose new ideas nor question old ones. of course, thats the cynical side.

The optimist in me would say that we are merely suffering a setback in modern drama on broadway, and that off-broadway things are thriving.

But Im inclined to side with my cynical self for the meantime. A friend posed the idea that we should just let plays die out completely. Just let them die and go away for a while, so a new rennaissance of sorts for theatre can take place. After all, you never realize how much you miss something until its gone completely. Who knows, just a thought. Updated On: 4/12/05 at 03:46 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 5:56pm

Plays will NEVER die out completely, they just may no longer have the audience to sustain them on Broadway anymore, which is sort of a sad thing, but ultimately a reflection of the culture we have. Given astronomical ticket prices audiences understandably prefer to go with a sure thing, rather than the unknown, which is why we have so many musicals based on popular movies, so many jukebox musicals with scores consisting of popular song catalogues, so many revivals of well-known musicals and so many revivals of iconic plays, but so very few new original plays (and few of them ever turn a profit).

There used to be a large Broadway audience willing to see plays they'd never heard of by playwrights they'd never heard of -- especially back when the top ticket price for a play was $30 to $40 (which, believe it or not, was only a little more than a decade ago). As the top price inched up past $75 to now $90, we're seeing fewer and fewer people willing to spend that on three or four character play with one set -- no matter how great the reviews are or how many movie stars are above the title.

There's also been a sizeable shift in the composition of the audience. Up until a decade or two ago, two-thirds of the Broadway audience consisted of regular theatregoers from NYC and the tri-state area. Many of those were serious, even adventurous theatregoers who were willing to and did support challenging and thought-provoking non-musical theatre. Now, two-thirds of the audience is made up of tourists on vacation who prefer lighter fare and that change is reflected in the types of shows producers are now willing to invest in and present. And I think in the future, especially as ticket prices continue to increase, we're going to see the audience composition increasingly become even more tourist-heavy, with the result being fewer and fewer new, original challenging shows making their way onto Broadway.

But, none of that means the death knell of the straight play in New York. It has LONG been the case that off-Broadway and the not-for-profit realm have been the main province for new and groundbreaking work and that will continue to be the case in the future. The vast majority of the finest American new plays and Pulitzer winners in the last two decades (and MANY eventual Tony winners and nominees) have come from not-for-profit off-Broadway and regional theatres around the country. Several other first rate plays have come from the subsidized theatre in London. New York's major institutional theatres -- LCT, MTC, Playwrights, Vineyard, The Public, Roundabout, Atlantic, NYTW, BAM, Second Stage, et al -- all seem to be doing fairly well these days (after suffering something of a financial crisis after 9/11) and they will continue to be the primary source for provocative and interesting and risky new work in the city. While there may not be enough of an audience to support this kind of work on Broadway anymore, there certainly seems to more than enough serious theatregoers (many thousands, clearly) left to subscribe and attend productions by the city's main not-for-profits. And for that, we should all be grateful.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 6:16pm

Many reasons why they are not doing well

1. Tourists & what they like have a lot to do with what makes it on Broadway. They like falling chandeliers & chorus girls & not drama

2. We no longer have Arthur Miller, Tennesse Williams, Eugene O Neill etc

3. The cost of putting on a show is prohibitive with a return on investment not looking good

4. When you can see a straight play & musical for almost the same price, musicals will win every time. I love drama but paying almost $ 100 a ticket for a straight play is insane

[ShuQ]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 6:22pm

Personally...I love plays just as much as I love musicals...BUT I don't want to pay that much often b/c I feel like I'm running more risk of getting bored. Plus, when you don't get to New York very often, you usually want to go to see what everyone is talking about. That's not exactly plays...ever..