THE INHERITANCE to close in March — Page 2

Add me to the list of Forbe’s “gay men who’ve rebelled” against this play.


For the lead, hiring a straight actor from London to play a gay New Yorker? Absolutely ridiculous. I was told they didn’t even audition actors in New York for that role, nonetheless give an amazing opportunity to an openly gay actor. Shameful. Not to mention the other straight actors they cast to tell their self-proclaimed “most important gay play of our generation.” They even fired some great out gay NY theatre actors after the initial NY workshop in other roles, supposedly with the feedback that some were afraid the “gayness” would alienate a broader audience.


Sorry, however strong the script is—which I thought it was when I read it before it came over—I am not buying a ticket to support this BS anymore. Another Andrew Garfield “gay face” debacle in Angels? That was offensive to watch. No thank you. And I’ve been telling everyone who talks to me about this play my thoughts.


This has to stop. Let gay men represent themselves in their own stories. Let the pendulum swing the other way for a while. How many straight actors win Tonys for “going gay?” How many have won Oscars for doing the same?


An openly gay actor has never won an Oscar in an acting category. 70 something straight actors have been nominated for Oscars. Recent straight actors playing gay include Rami Malek, Olivia Coleman, Mahershala Ali, and of course like Sean Penn, Tom Hanks, Hilary Swank, Charlize Theron etc etc all won for “going gay.”


Gay actors do not get the same opportunities. Shameful this production further propelled that imbalance. As an aware and intelligent self-respecting gay New Yorker, who I would think this production was trying to appeal to, I’m hard stop not supporting these productions anymore.

yahyahyah said it. Thank you.

Damn. My husband really wanted to see this again.

I have no doubt that Maher's comments about the NY gay community have truth to them (obviously, yahyahyah's post above is a prime example). But I feel like plenty of gay men loved the show and still turned out to see it. I feel like the larger problem - at least where the box office numbers are concerned - is that NYC theatre gays were the ONLY demographic really turning out to see it. If the show had tourist appeal, it wouldn't really matter if NY theatre gays weren't turning up for it (and I say that solely from a numbers perspective - obviously it matters from a social & artistic perspective). Because even if the NY gay community hadn't rebelled against it (and again, only a portion of the community actually did), that demographic on its own probably wouldn't be enough to keep a Broadway show running - right?

Also, interesting to read that the nut was $460K. That's right around - but slightly lower than - what I would have expected, but I'm always glad to learn these numbers, because the more points of reference we have, the better we can estimate other shows' running costs.

@MrsSallyAdams

The Angels in America revival was well-received by critics, audiences, and awards-voters. But its numbers, while much better than The Inheritance, were not crazy high. IIRC, it was relatively easy to get on TDF, and by all indications, it did not recoup.

Boys in the Band, on the other hand, did recoup its investment (which was less than half of what Angels cost)

And while I'm playing "what if" I wonder how Jake Borelli, the out actor from Grey's Anatomy and The Thing About Harry, would do in the role of Eric Glass?

everythingtaboo said: "So does that mean the show closes without John Benjamin Hickeycoming back?

I'm not at all surprised this is closing, frankly I'm shocked they even bothered to extend. The reviews weren't as good as London, and frankly their marketing wasn't that great. They barely released clips of the show. For a $10M budget, they should've done more pointed marketing towards women, POC, young people, etc.$10 Million?! It's not like they even had a shoe budget."

I'm actually inclined to disagree about the marketing. From a social perspective, I absolutely agree that women, POC, young people, etc. are the people most likely to come see the show and the ones who will feel most represented by this production. But targeting a market like that is asking for financial failure.

Other than the general female demographic (who do turn out in ticket sales quite well), you're targeting the lowest income demographics who can't afford full priced tickets, especially for a two-part show that costs 2x everything else if you want to see it in its entirety. Specifically looking at the example of targeting the youth/millennial demographic, we can see from just this past year with shows like Be More Chill and Lightning Thief why that is a failure of a marketing strategy. Yes it'll get the show flying around social media, but it clearly is not indicative of actually getting people in the seats with well-sold tickets. And granted those are specifically to the iGen demographic, but I remember when Spongebob ran in Chicago someone brought up the point that the reason it failed financially was because it targeted exactly the wrong demographic: young kids weren't familiar enough with Spongebob for it to be a big family hit, and the adults with money to spend came-of-age before Spongebob was around. The people who wanted to see Spongebob were the 20-30 year olds who couldn't afford the ticket and didn't have kids/families yet to take.

The best thing they could've done would've been to target tourists and more casual theatre goers with money to spend. Maybe stars would've helped draw people to the show, or better reviews/word-of-mouth outside of the niche theatre community. And while this is clearly not in its creative/artistic favor, trimming it to one part would likely have helped it significantly. Telling people that it's a 7 hour, 3.5 hour/part commitment is intimidating enough to the casual theatre-goer, and then asking them to either set a full day or two half days aside to see it is just another layer of deterrence for most.

JBroadway brings up a wise point in that talking about the NY Gay community protesting the show may be valid enough in discussing its social merits, but it also isn't all that representative because it seems like the NY Gay community was really the only demographic to turn out for this show, in addition to avid theatre-goers.


I think arguing the sociopolitical aspects of the show is really beside the point of it closing. It's a valid discussion for another thread/talking point, but a bad argument when talking economics.

Updated On: 2/21/20 at 10:53 AM

The marketing for the production was truly terrible, it must be said. Vague quotes about its importance, then attempts to play up its sexiness, always plastered with that ugly flaming cherry blossom. Busy posters in cool colors that aren't eyecatching. They gave no idea what it was.

For all the things the press releases says the play is about- addiction, New York, generational connection between gay men, class in the gay community, politics, etc etc- those aren't the things I even think about the show having been about. It all jumbles up into romantic melodrama, with issues treated as flavor. It's "about" so much that it ended up not being about very much to me.

The play - a two-part gay melodrama- was always going to be a tough sell. Even if it had received raves, it would have been a tough sell.

Updated On: 2/21/20 at 11:53 AM

Miles2Go2 said: "As I recall, in another thread someone posted an interview with Lopez where he stated that they attempted to recruit famous gay actors, but didn’t have any luck with that. Also, in that same thread, it was mentioned that it’s probably illegal or at least against equity rules to ask actors during auditions what their sexual orientation is."

I’m not sure where I stand on the question of qualified straight actors playing gay roles, but by definition you don’t need to ask this question of actors who are publicly out.

Ledaero said: "I’m not sure whereI stand on the question of qualified straight actors playing gay roles, but by definition you don’t need to ask this question of actors who are publicly out."

Right, but the casting pool then becomes very limited if you're only looking at people who are out in the public/those actors are big enough names that it becomes a stretch for actually casting them. Or it means relying on the creative team knowing whether actors who they audition/walk into the roomare already out, which can be tough to navigate."

That’s certainly a fair point. I’m pretty sure it would be appropriate to ask an evocative question like “what would it mean to you personally to work on this play?”

I'm torn on this one guys (and gals:) I believe in separating art from cultural politics. The cast was extraordinary and frankly I believed all of them as gay men and that was all that I cared about. By your logic I guess we would be discrimanating against straight actors if a gay actor was ever cast in a heterosexual role. Perhaps they cast the best actors for the play. Kyle Soller is an American who lives in London and has a bit of a following there. He starred in Poldark for a few seasons. I think the rules of Woke correctness may have contributed to this wonderful play's demise. London didn't have any of these issues. Let us not destroy the good in a quest for the perfect...