'Swept Away’ to Close on Broadway December 15- Page 2

[TheGingerBreadMan]

Posted: 12/5/24 at 10:49pm

Heartbroken. I loved the show in DC and was hoping to see the Broadway production on my spring trip in a few months (although didn't have my hopes up for it to last).

It really is a tough sell. I don't think that the Avett Brothers are a recognizable enough group to sustain ticket sales, and the subject matter isn't one that tourists and families are going to be largely interested in. It's a shame, because while the book is flawed, the production as a whole really is beautiful and the score is lovely. It features fantastic performances too, especially from Adrian Blake Enscoe who blew (or swept?) me away in DC.

I wonder if they would've fared better with a spring opening.

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 12/5/24 at 10:52pm

Well dammit I had a ticket for Dec 17. Guess now I have to try lottery or rush each day.

[quizking101]

Posted: 12/5/24 at 11:04pm

Cape Twirl of Doom said: "Well dammit I had a ticket for Dec 17. Guess now I have to try lottery or rush each day."

If you go when the box office opens, it’s a ghost town, even on weekends 

[Kad]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 12:23am

I think there was a large overestimation of the ability of the Avett Brothers to be a draw here. They were really the main selling point in the press and marketing. 
This certainly seems like a show that should’ve been able to run at least a few months, considering its decent reviews and word of mouth. Beautiful key art aside, I do think there was a failure of marketing to articulate what the show was and to target key audience.

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 12:42am

pretty crazy that any show is going to under-run Tammy Faye this season

[Idiot]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 1:21am

I was there tonight and had never seen a 'closing notice' delivered by an actor before. No matter how I felt about the show, it was heartbreaking.  There is clearly real camaraderie in this cast, having worked with the material together through various incarnations.  

One of the suppositions I'm seeing is that audiences don't want to see a dark show.  That's just flat out wrong.  Oh hell yes, they do - even dark musicals run when they come together into a piece that draws you in with intellect, wit, style or story.  I think this show failed to do that.  Granted - I'd never heard any of the Avett Brothers' music until tonight and to my ear, they have the Mumford & Sons problem - their songs all sound alike.  This is of course completely subjective - if you love their sound you'd probably have enjoyed the show more than I did.  

Getting a show to Broadway is a huge success and I hope those involved know that.  Having a hit is an entirely different topic. 

Updated On: 12/6/24 at 01:21 AM

[JaglinSays]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 1:54am

This is simply not an effective theater score. 
And after this and The Last Ship, the book writer steer clear of seafaring material. 

[MezzoDiva47]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 2:01am

its difficult for shows like this one to catch on

the basic question still remains

who was the audience for this?

the subject matter is dark and the book isnt clever enough to add dimension

the production values are fine enough but lack anything compelling

the songs are good but the mediocre musical arrangements add nothing to what the avett brothers can already give you

the word meh comes to mind and that aint cutting it on broadway these days

also that EDSOBLAH666 guy claimed this was closing december 22 so we know how reliable his sources are

[binau]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 3:03am

I thought there was indeed a bit of magic in this show, from the book (even if it didn’t work at all points), staging, acting and score. Like many scores I think it’s hard to take all in at first but I suspect it will come across well in the cast recording. There were some genuinely novel melodies and harmonies there. I had (and have had listening to it) a much harder time appreciating ‘the outsiders’ score in comparison if we talk about samsey folksy music (excluding great expectations and stay gold). 

I assume it ran less than Tammy because everyone involved in this were consummate professionals who know when to call it. Tammy should have closed on opening night. 

[ACL2006]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 7:06am

This is from Josh Breckenridge's Facebook page.

I hope this is received more as an education..rather than a shaming.

Broadway community, theater goers, tourists, family members, friends…

A new show cannot survive unless YOU support. I am 2 for 2 now in 2024.

If you are “tired of non-original musicals on Broadway and wan’t more “original, bold new works” that aren’t based off film or any pre-existing property….YOU. HAVE. TO. COME. AND. SUPPORT. That means your butt in the seats… EARLY into a run.

The first few weeks of a musicals birth on Broadway are CHEIF to a shows success.

If a show plays to half empty houses within its first weeks it CANNOT survive. You have to put your money where your mouth is. You have to not be hypocritical and preach for change but not contribute yourself to said desired change. End of story. I am INCREDIBLY disappointed in my community and theater goers in general.

Huge commercial, film properties with a history of success typically don’t need as much support as new ventures. “I thought I had more time,” or “I had no Idea,” or I was coming,” is simply not good enough.

COME SUPPORT NEW THEATRE IF YOU CARE. IF YOU WANT NEW ART TO THRIVE. IF YOU’RE TIRED OF COMMERCIAL FLUFF.

In addition I find it infuriating that The Heart of Rock and Roll was too camp for folks this season….yet Swept Away was too serious. All the while plenty of other camp properties and dramatic properties (that have commercial support) are juuuuust right.

Please do better people. If you want to support your friends, see great theater, watch our industry make way for innovate, beautiful, daring, dark (and light), original theatre….then contribute. We can’t survive without YOU.

..and contribute EARLY. Again, the first few weeks are integral to a new piece. Most did NOT show up for The Heart of Rock and Roll….did NOT show up for Swept Away. Both great pieces of new theater.

There are other variables, of course….but the “I’ll catch it sometime” attitude can no longer be the norm friends.

It cannot.

[pablitonizer]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 7:20am

ACL2006 said: "This is from Josh Breckenridge's Facebook page.

I hope this is received more as an education..rather than a shaming.

Broadway community, theater goers, tourists, family members, friends…

A new show cannot survive unless YOU support. I am 2 for 2 now in 2024.

If you are “tired of non-original musicals on Broadway and wan’t more “original, bold new works” that aren’t based off film or any pre-existing property….YOU. HAVE. TO. COME. AND. SUPPORT. That means your butt in the seats… EARLY into a run.

The first few weeks of a musicals birth on Broadway are CHEIF to a shows success.

If a show plays to half empty houses within its first weeks it CANNOT survive. You have to put your money where your mouth is. You have to not be hypocritical and preach for change but not contribute yourself to said desired change. End of story. I am INCREDIBLY disappointed in my community and theater goers in general.

Huge commercial, film properties with a history of success typically don’t need as much support as new ventures. “I thought I had more time,” or “I had no Idea,” or I was coming,” is simply not good enough.

COME SUPPORT NEW THEATRE IF YOU CARE. IF YOU WANT NEW ART TO THRIVE. IF YOU’RE TIRED OF COMMERCIAL FLUFF.

In addition I find it infuriating that The Heart of Rock and Roll was too camp for folks this season….yet Swept Away was too serious. All the while plenty of other camp properties and dramatic properties (that have commercial support) are juuuuust right.

Please do better people. If you want to support your friends, see great theater, watch our industry make way for innovate, beautiful, daring, dark (and light), original theatre….then contribute. We can’t survive without YOU.

..and contribute EARLY. Again, the first few weeks are integral to a new piece. Most did NOT show up for The Heart of Rock and Roll….did NOT show up for Swept Away. Both great pieces of new theater.

There are other variables, of course….but the “I’ll catch it sometime” attitude can no longer be the norm friends.

It cannot."

 

People are more cautious about where they want to spend their money on. I don't think it's as black and white as he put it here, other factors are involved. Heart of rock n roll was fun but overall bad. I din't see Swept away since it did not attract me, but most people I know hated it. So word of mouth was a bit meh

Updated On: 12/6/24 at 07:20 AM

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 7:55am

The only person I’ve spoken to about this show was a friend who’s an Avett Brothers fan and saw it early in previews. She hated it, so I didn’t bother. That’s how word of mouth works.

I’m always sad to see dedicated theatre actors out of work - especially so suddenly and right before the holidays.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 8:02am

I saw it in DC and thought it had a decent future at major regional theaters, ones that could include it as part of a subscription base or whose audiences know to appreciate more adventurous fare.  But the subject matter and tonality never made me think it would work in a commercial run in NYC. 

[ACL2006]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 8:30am

There's a number floating around saying that 80% of new musicals will close at a lose. Realistically, since Broadway reopened, how many new musicals recouped? & Juliet, MJ? The Outsiders & Hell's Kitchen will. Any others?

Updated On: 12/6/24 at 08:30 AM

[UWS10023]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 8:32am

Such a shame. Maybe it can play regionally.

[Ravanne_1]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 9:07am

Broadway has become so expensive both to stage a production and to attend a performance that it's starting to become unsustainable. The shows have a very short window to prove that they can be profitable over a long run. On the other hand, when the audience is spending over $100 per person they're going to be more discerning over what they spend their money on. Attending live theater is a luxury now and it's hard sell to get a broad audience to sit through a show that is challenging and dark. I know a lot of people who may only see one show a year (if that) and they'd rather see something enjoyable with dancers and catchy songs than something like Swept Away.

I've watched how Broadway has changed over the years, seeing how talented stage performers got replaced for the leads by tv and film stars. Jukebox musicals or shows based on familiar tv shows and films have a leg up over original concepts. We expect shows to run for years and depend on stunt casting  to sustain them (when the natural life-cycle of a show should probably be a year or two). This just doesn't leave a lot of room for a show like this.

I want there to be a place for shows like this that challenge the audience a bit, but the theater industry as it stands now just isn't allowing the space for interesting theater. I'm rather sad that this show didn't survive and I hope that it finds a home in an off-Broadway or regional venue.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 9:35am

Ravanne_1 said: "I want there to be a place for shows like this that challenge the audience a bit, but the theater industry as it stands now just isn't allowing the space for interesting theater. I'm rather sad that this show didn't survive and I hope that it finds a home in an off-Broadway or regional venue."

This has been said at some point probably forever in the history of NYC theater, especially Broadway.  I think the mix of shows we've seen in recent years would suggest your observation is a bit too sweeping, but the issue of what is "interesting" AND financially viable certainly remains omnipresent.

 

[keen on kean]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 9:42am

I am a fan of this show but I have to admit that I was sorry to see it at the Longacre, one of my least favorite venues. I think Swept Away has a strong future in smaller houses regionally (like the Arena in DC where it sold out) and even off Broadway at some point. Getting closer physically to the four survivors would make the emotional impact greater.  And I can't wait for the cast recording.

[SingingEachtoEach]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 9:42am

JasonC3 said: "I saw it in DC and thought it had a decent future at major regional theaters, ones that could include it as part of a subscription base or whose audiences know to appreciate more adventurous fare. But the subject matter and tonality never made me think it would work in a commercial run in NYC."

I saw this in DC and I felt the same.  I ultimately was glad I saw this musical, the performances were all great, the set and lighting were great, but it has a book problem.  The whole second half is set on a small boat and it's designed to build a sense of dread the whole time. 

(Very mild spoilers) The opening with the ghosts yelling "tell our story" just feels a bit awkward and meeting the ship's crew with them singing "I'm a hard hard worker" just felt way too on the nose.  Some with the song that's just a list of the bad things a character had done. Those songs just didn't work for me.

I didn't regret going to see the show, I ultimately enjoyed it, but I did think it had some issues.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 10:54am

We are stuck in this endless cycle where writers/directors and their agents want to develop work for commercial life (for financial and visibility reasons), but in reality an off-Broadway nonprofit is a more appropriate venue for a musical like SWEPT AWAY.

It is viewed as a failure if the last stop on a musical's New York journey is the Public Theater or Playwrights Horizons and I wish that wasn't the case. But, the problem is, even the big nonprofits can't produce musicals without commercial producers enhancing the production, and they certainly can't commission at a meaningful price tag. And for commercial producers, actually mounting the show commercially is the only way to have a prayer of making back any money (even though that involves zillions more dollars).

 

Updated On: 12/6/24 at 10:54 AM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 11:12am

As someone who was rooting SO MUCH for this show, it bothers me that people’s takeaway here is simply that there isn’t room for interesting theater.

 

the problem here was that they didn’t make a very good show inspite of having all the tools: great music, an amazing cast, gorgeous sets, and a respected book writer and director.

 

this show virtually no changes through its out of town tryouts inspite of a deeply flawed book. They COULD have done the work to make this an amazing show—it simply wasn’t. I didn’t feel like my night was wasted—I even wanted to see it again at some point, but I also knew I could recommend it to commercial theater lovers OR my friends with more experimental taste because it just wasn’t great theater and left me wondering more about what could have been than relishing in what it was.

 

I wish producers and creative teams especially would just be honest with themselves about this. I saw today multiple cast members and producers posting that the show is closing “in spite of glowing critical reception”—that simply isn’t true. It got mixed reception at best, with a few fcritics appreciating the risk taking but acknowledging its failure to really hold up as a strong piece of theater. Hell, even Green’s Critics Pick review read lukewarm at best!

 

No doubt it is a tough landscape for innovative work in Broadway. But this show had LOTS of potential and it could have had a healthy run. At the end of the day, the problem wasn’t that it was too risky, it’s that it wasn’t a good enough show 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 11:27am

I understand that Josh Breckenridge is speaking from a place of frustration and real concern for new and vibrant shows on Broadway, but his message really does seem like an attempt to shame potential audience members, and I can't imagine that that will be helpful. Also, it's a little peculiar to single out two jukebox musicals as examples of new and original works.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 11:38am

kdogg36 said: "I understand that Josh Breckenridge is speakingfrom a place of frustration and real concern for new and vibrant shows on Broadway, but his message really does seem like an attempt to shame potential audience members, and I can't imagine that that will be helpful. Also, it's a little peculiar to single out two jukebox musicals as examples of new and original works."

I am still pondering his point about the importance of going early in their run of shows likely to need that boost.  I have a lot of friends who are published authors and when they have a new book, they aggressively ask people to pre-order, explaining why that matters, and offer incentives for people to do so.

With the pricing incentive for previews often nonexistent and many people in a general "wait and see" attitude" anyway, some producers and shows probably need to craft and execute a better cultivation strategy yo the first 4-8 weeks of a run ... at minimum.

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 11:48am

It's a bit of a conundrum, because ticket prices are so high that people don't want to take risks in going early to a show that may or may not be what they like (out of town can help build buzz but I don't feel like that was the case here).  Selling cheaper tickets helps but then you could possibly get stuck in a trap like Maybe Happy Ending where you then have to figure out how to convert those rush tickets to full price tickets to sustain your run later, so it's a delicate balancing act.  And I'm assuming they still need to make SOME money in the first few weeks to be able to run, but I agree that there's really not much incentive to go early right now.  (I was explaining the preview period to someone not super well versed in theater and her reaction was just "you mean I'm paying full price for a half-baked show?")

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 12/6/24 at 11:51am

JasonC3 said: "I am still pondering his point about the importance of going early in their run of shows likely to need that boost. I have a lot of friends who are published authors and when they have a new book, they aggressively ask people to pre-order, explaining why that matters, and offer incentives for people to do so.

With the pricing incentive for previews often nonexistent and many people in a general "wait and see" attitude" anyway, some producers and shows probably need to craft and execute a better cultivation strategy yo the first 4-8 weeks of a run ... at minimum."
 

Every Broadway show has a financial reserve, but the dollar amount can vary wildly. Could be $500K, could be a few million. Sometimes, there is a level of overoptimism going a Broadway show that sales won't be THAT bad in the beginning for x y z reasons.

If preview sales are bad and you lose a few hundred thousand every week, that adds up quickly and by opening night the contingency is depleted. Not to mention, the contingency is ALSO there to cover for production overages or unbudgeted expenses.

Which means the producers either need to raise more up front, which isn't easy (we're talking about adding 1-2 mil to a not-cheap capitalization), or post-opening going out to investors to put up a Priority Loan, which is sometimes viewed as pouring cash into a burning hole.

From a word of mouth standpoint on SWEPT, the houses were decently full in previews (80%+) so this show didn't have the issue of playing to a mostly-empty house, and the average price was a reasonable-but-not-sustainable $65 to $85.