The Future of The Non-Musical on Broadway

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:25pm

I posted this elsewhere, but I think it deserves its own thread. Linked below is an article from today's Times about the bleak prospects for the nonmusical play on today's Broadway and how it may affect the future of theatre in general -- it's a worthwhile read.

I've been having this conversation for a couple of years with friends over whether the non-musical play is dead on Broadway. The audience for serious theatre seems to have either died off, moved to Florida, or been priced out of the market by escalating ticket costs. It used to be that every season there were several non-musical plays that would have a decent profitable run -- serious dramas, light comedies, star vehicles. Now, straight plays and nonconventional/genre-defying musicals can't ever seem to beak even, which is scary for the future of all theatre, period.

How many NEW nonmusical plays have turned a profit in the last five years? Four? Five? Even when you have stars like John Lithgow or Judd Hirsch or Jimmy Smits or Ellen Burstyn or Frank Langella or (LOL) Farrah Fawcett, you apparently can't run for more than a month or two. Even when it's a critically acclaimed solo show (I Am My Own Wife, Golda's Balcony) with minimal sets and running costs, a play STILL apparently can't break even.

Apparently the Not-for-profit realm is the only way to go for challenging new work on Broadway. Because they have large subscriber bases and sizable financial support from corporate, government and individual sources, MTC and Lincoln Center can at least do limited engagements of unproven new work by (noncommercial) playwrights and composers. Thanks to them, Broadway will see new works from Donald Marguiles (Brooklyn Boy at The Biltmore), Elaine May (After The Night and The Music @ The Biltmore) and Adam Guettel (Light In The Piazza @ The Beaumont) this season (following a new Sondheim work "The Frogs" earlier this season at LCT and the Broadway debuts of acclaimed plays from Craig Lucas and Margulies at MTC earlier this year). And similarly, Roundabout can mount first class productions of Sondheim works that no commercial producer would touch given the rather bleak prospects of turning a profit (Follies, Assassins, Pacific Overtures). We need MORE big budget not-for-profits who can afford to operate a Broadway space and dedicate it to works that are too financially risky for commercial producers to touch -- the future of the American theatre depends on it.

Otherwise, the handwriting is on the wall that Broadway will basically just be Vegas East in another decade or two -- there will only be an audience for big mindless spectacles, featuring the pop music catalogues of whoever's left at that point (WHAM?; Boys2Men? Lionel Ritchie?).

NY Times Article

Updated On: 12/7/04 at 02:25 PM

[LittleFish8386]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:31pm

That is truly sad

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:33pm

The american play on broadway is in great danger. It has become very hard to market straight plays to broadway (tourist) audiences. Great works go unnoticed.... Shows like "16 Wounded" were left unnoticed- it was a great piece of writing. Very rarely do a show like I am my own wife, Golda's Balcony, Raisin in the Sun, Proof, Take me out get enough word of mouth behind them to sell.

Part of the problem is that when the majority of broaday audiences come in (tourists) they want as much for their buck as they can get. A straight play cant offer the splashy sets and scenery not to mention the singing and dancing that a musical can.

Also, the contemporary audience needs the songs to break up the action of the play due to the television/low attention span trained mind. A musical is just more fun and easier to sit though, not to mention it requires less thinking.

I do not know what the solution is other than to pour tons of money into plays at not for profit houses and expect to loose money. I just don't sell as easily.

Its sad to look at the number of plays that flopped in the past two seasons.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:37pm

Very true, Mimi. They also need something they can take home - again, with the attention span issue, a CD that not only reminds them of their experience but allows them to relive it over and over in order to truly understand what was happening in the show is quite valuable.

And yes, it is very sad. I marvel that GOLDA'S BALCONY is still running. Not because it doesn't deserve to be - it absolutely does - Tovah is so incredible - but because it's a straight play about significant historical events.

Updated On: 12/7/04 at 02:37 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:41pm

Problem is, there is no incentive for writers to continue dedicating themselves to the theatre. One of hte most talented writers I know is now a story editor for a reality series and is making waaaaaaaaay more money than you can imagine.

Another sold a couple of screenplays to a basic cable station (believe me, not where the major writing money is) and lived off of that money for quite some time.

Even look at AMERICAN BEAUTY. Alan Ball started that initially as a play...but switched to a movie, made millions and is now a golden child at HBO for Six Feet Under.

New York used to be the cultural heart of America. But now, people don't have to leave their homes to see entertainment that is far more thought-provoking and enjoyable than is available on Broadway...and for a hell of a lot less money.

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:42pm

I didnt even begin to think about the fact of the matter that the CD take home allows consumers to get more for their buck. The thing that needs to remembered about Broadway is that it is a commercial venture. The stuff that gets produced is the most marketable work in theatre. We can't expect that there will be many unhighly marketable works that do financially well on Broadway. Producers know this. They don't put stuff up on Broadway unless their believe that there will be a financial return for their investors.

Very rarely, a producer will put a work on Broadway because they simply love the piece and don't care how much money they will loose (Taboo). I propose that there needs to be another forum for untraditional works to have their play.

We americans have really only truely created and cultured few things in our history. The Musical is the one that we can claim as an art form that we created, and do the best. We celebrate that.

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:45pm

sorry Robbie, didnt mean to ignore your post- we must be typing at the same time.

The reality is that the world is changing....entertainment is changing. We are a comerical, capitalist society and thats how we think...even the artists. Who wouldnt want to sell out?

The issue is- often no one wants to buy?

My favorite John waters quote is this: "I've Always wanted to sell out, unfortunitly I don't have anything that anyone is willing to buy."

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:45pm

Remember any money donated to a not-for-profit theatre is tax deductible, so no one's really "losing" money contributing to MTC and Lincoln Center, not to mention the great off-Broadway companies like The Public, Playwrights, NYTW, Atlantic, the Vineyard, Second Stage, Signature et al. I would love it if enough donations would pour into any of those companies I just named that would allow them to acquire a 500+ seat Broadway eligible space. They'd obviously need to greatly increase their subscriber bases considerably to make such a space financially feasible, but it would be a wonderful addition to the Broadway scene to have the productions of any of those theatres be able to take on a higher profile and have some of the younger, fledgling playwrights/composers/lyricists that these theatres support get the kind of national exposure that comes with getting a Broadway production.

Updated On: 12/7/04 at 02:45 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:51pm

It would also be nice if our government recogized that (and I'm paraphrasing Harvey Fierstien here) the greatest country in the world deserves the best art in the world.

Until there is a major shift in this country, I fear we'll just head down the wrong path. Until artistic expression is considered as valid as atheletic prowess, then we'll continue to raise children who have no concept of what music, poetry, dance, prose and the visual arts can do for one's soul.

[Mimi Imfurst]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:51pm

Definitly. I didnt mean that it was a loss of money in terms of being a bad thing, but the reality is a non profit adventure is a loosing money adventure. But in those situations making money is not the point.

[ChrisLovesShows]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 2:53pm

I wish it would happen too, Margo. But who will make donations other than those of us who already love theatre enough to pay for a ticket? It is indeed very sad.

[midtowngym]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 3:16pm

There are two problems-
1. Prices-I was truly horrified to see $95 tickets for Democracy (I paid $65.) One solution is the SPF, Summer Play Festival which just completed its inaugural year www.spfnyc.com/ Tickets were $10, and i saw some interesting works. However, a wealthy patron underwrote it, and NONE of the plays have transferred to Broadway/Off-Broadway.
And compare that to the New York Musical Festival also having it's inaugural year www.nymf.org/ Several shows will transfer-Altar Boyz, Trailer Park Musical, etc.
2. American attention spans- no solution there...

[magruder]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 3:19pm

You know what, though... I think people will go to straight plays ... if they're good. As discussed in an earlier thread, we're not exactly getting the new Glengarrys, Night Mothers, Crimes of the Heart, et al, each season.

No, it's not a healthy situation out there for the commercially produced play, and it's shocking when something like I Am My Own Wife can win the Pulitzer, Tony, play for 10 months and still not pay back its investment. But then I'm heartened that there have been commercially successful productions of Long Day's Journey Into Night, Death of a Salesman, Moon for the Misbegotten, Iceman Cometh, and others etc. in the last few years. In some of those cases, a star was involved in driving ticket sales, but audiences also left exhilirated by the experience.

I still feel that there is a place for the well-made, well-cast commercially produced play on Broadway. If it can work for those revivals listed above, it can work for new plays. I just find that many of the new plays we're seeing in the commercial market are just short in stature when compared to the distant and not-so-distant past.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 3:34pm

One of my arguments has been that since few plays seem to run more than two or three months anyway, why doesn't that group of a dozen or so producers who seem to be behind all of the money-losing straight plays every season, just get together and form their own not-for-profit company (or toss a lot of money at an already established one)? Together they lose millions and millions year after year on straight plays that simply can't attract enough of an audience to run a year and break even. Fine.

Start a not-for-profit (in partnership with Jujamcyn or the Nederlanders or the Shuberts who could provide a theatre -- for a negotiated price of course) similar in set up to MTC or LCT, where you offer a season of 5 new plays (for, say $200 -- roughly what a membership at the other theatres costs .... $40 a play). Each play does a 8 - 9 week limited engagement (about what most of them would do in a commercial run on Broadway anyway) and with such a limited time commitment, imagine the kinds of actors you might be able to attract (Streep, Hopkins, Irons, Bates, DeNiro -- wonderful stage actors we lost to Hollywood long ago). With major names, they'd have no problem selling subscriptions, plus be eligible for all manner of government and corporate donations, thus greatly reducing the actual financial outlay needed from each producer. However, come Tony time, they'd have five eligible plays in the running, it would have cost them far less than had they produced them commercially and all out-of-pocket is tax deductible.

They might also toss in a less than commercial musical or two each season (the next Caroline or Change or Wild Party or Light In The Piazza).

I know, I know, it's all a pipe dream -- what would make these big bad producers go into the not-for-profit world where there are no PROFITS to brag about. My point is, there don't seem to ever be any profits from straight plays anymore anyway and haven't been for years. If you're still nonetheless committed to producing straight plays and apparently don't mind losing millions a year, then why not get together with all your other rich like-minded pals and get more bang for your buck -- produce five plays under not-for-profit auspices for what it would have cost you to produce two or three plays commercially. It's cheaper for you, cheaper for us the audience, and allows playwrights and directors to be more daring artistically since the pressure's off in terms of having to create a play that's more commercial and that appeals to a broad enough spectrum of the tastes that would allow it to run for a year. And maybe, playwrights can start writing plays that have more than one or two characters again.

Anyway, just a thought. I know my idea's not perfect (and probably not all that original), but somebody better come up with some creative solutions soon, or else more and more tourist-geared crap will end up clogging all of the Broadway theatres, and smart, innovative, challenging plays and musicals will become a thing of the past -- as far as New York is concerned.

Updated On: 12/7/04 at 03:34 PM

[magruder]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 3:48pm

What you are suggesting is kinda happening anyway...with commercial producers enhancing non-profit productions in the hopes of swooping in on the commercial rights if it lands. Their risk is far less than mounting it from scratch themselves in the commercial market. Their hands are clean if it fails, and the non-profit has a commercial partner for a move if it succeeds.

I don't think the producers will allign to form a collective non-profit. There is still too much money to be made in the for-profit arena, despite the spotty track record of the commercial play in the last few years. But Proof and Allergist's Wife, which both paid back in record time (less than three months, I believe?), proved that it still can be done.

Updated On: 12/7/04 at 03:48 PM

[Mamie]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 5:43pm

This has been worrying me more and more as the last few years have passed. I recently mentioned to a friend that I was going to NY overnight and seeing "Little Women" and "La Cage". She immediately said that I sure had changed a lot! I was the one who never went to musicals simply because I never found one that came close to the cerebral and emotional experience I could get from a straight play. (Even in those few moments when a musical might 'pull me in', it always succeeded in breaking the mood by breaking into song!)

Thinking back just over the last few years - The Crucible, The Invention of Love, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, An Almost Holy Picture, Long Day's Journey Into Night, Proof, Morning's at Seven, Wrong Mountain, The Tale of the Allergist Wife, No Noise, Death of a Salesman, The Iceman Cometh, The Goat or Who is Sylvia,.... God, I loved these plays!

If they ever did start that not for profit to produce straight plays, I'D SUBSCRIBE. And I don't even live in New York.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 5:57pm

well, there seems to have been a jump at the BO for straight plays last week... Democracy, Gem Of The Ocean, Golda's Balcony, 'night, Mother, The Good Body, The Rivals, 12 Angry Men... while many of the musicals have dropped...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 6:10pm

Mamie, I think you and I (and my boyfriend at the time) were the only ones who loved "Wrong Mountain." Every single critic HATED that play but I thought it was very smart, funny and thought-provoking (as well as well acted). I loved your other choices as well.

Let the big all-star revivals of the classics of the canon stay with commercial Broadway -- Raisin, Iceman, Long Day's, Cat, Salesman -- with big movie stars they can compete with the splashy musicals for the tourist dollar and actually turn a profit. But something needs to be done to help the NEW plays find an audience and the new playwrights to survive here before they leave for Hollywood to become overpaid screenwriters and sitcom hacks, or, as Magruder said in an earlier thread, we're not going to have anything to revive (except the same old chestnuts) in 20 years.

Updated On: 12/7/04 at 06:10 PM

[UnsaneLily87]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 7:00pm

It seems today that the only way a straight play can ever get any payoff is to have a) it made into a movie, b) big stars, or c) surrounded by a controversial event.

A prime example of A is Closer--most people had never heard of it until it was made into a movie. I'm not familiar with it beyond the summaries I have read (I plan to see it over Christmas break), but from what I am aware of, it was an amazing play that was a real insight into relationships.

B--Do I need to ask? Raisin, Proof, This is Our Youth...the ONLY reason Proof is so big is because of Gwyneth. From all accounts I have heard, she was brilliant. But that's besides the point--there could have been an even better actress ready to play the role, but it would have never sold, unless there were stars on board. This is our Youth recieved SO MUCH press credit because of it's reputation as "Summer Camp for Starlets." Oy.

C--The Laramie Project is successful because everyone remembers Matt's death. I was in this recently, and we sold out all of our weekend performances (4 a weekend) and many of the weeknights were packed. Truth to be told, they were brought by rememberence. The same goes for Angels in America (or it did, before it was made into a movie, which would put it in category A). It involved something very personal. Same with the Diary of Anne Frank. Word of mouth helps as well.

Or you can just do a Shakespeare (and I know that's misspelled, but I'm exahusted now). Hah. See, eventually, when I'm "out in the real world", I want to act for a living, but my love isn't musicals--I want to do plays. I love my Shakespeare just like the next girl (probably more) but honestly, I would love to do some modern plays that get some recognition. I don't get the same thing out of sining and dancing (which I enjoy) as having a revealing monlouge or scene.

It really depresses me that I may not get the chance to do that very often.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 7:28pm

Regarding a couple of your examples:

-- This Is Our Youth played here in NYC off-Broadway twice (NEVER Broadway) with a cast of unknowns, including Mark Ruffalo before his film career took off; Ruffalo gave one of the most natural and accomplished stage performances I'd seen in years and I predicted great things for him then (while I'm happy for his success in Hollywood, I do hope he makes it back to the stage at some point soon). The play only became "Summer Camp for Starlets" years later when it was produced in London with Jake Gyllenhaal et al......

-- Proof ran on Broadway for over two years starring Mary-Louise Parker (later replaced by Jennifer Jason-Leigh and Anne Heche) and proved to be one of the few major nonmusical hits on Broadway in the last several years. Parker was deemed too old to repeat the role on screen which resulted in Paltrow being cast in the film (the release of which is now held up indefinitely, apparently)

-- Angels in America was a VERY unique phenomenon. It began at Eureka in San Francisco, received an acclaimed production in London and by the time it arrived in New York, it had already been hailed as one of the greatest plays written in half a century on BOTH sides of the Atlantic (Frank Rich of the Times reviewewd the London production and raved so that it became THE event of the theatrical season when it finally opened here in 1993). I saw each part multiple times and it was indeed one of the greatest things I've ever seen in my life. It's success had nothing to do with celebrity (Ron Leibman was the closest thing to one in the cast and he was hardly famous) or "remembrance", it had to do with being THE EVENT that every so-called cultured person (and anyone who liked to think of themselves as one) within a 100 miles of NYC felt they HAD to see -- one of the few MUST SEE nonmusical events on Broadway in the last decade or two (the 8 hour Nicholas Nickelby in the early 80s was probably the last one before that). Neverthess, Angels still lost $1.1 million during its original Broadway run (it recouped that loss during the subsequent road tour).

-- The Laramie Project played Off-Broadway at the Union Square Theatre (NEVER Broadway) and sold well for a time because a stellar slate of reviews, but only ran about 6 months -- serious theatre is a tough sell in this day and age and the subject matter just never appealed to enough people (and in fact probably repelled quite a few) for the play to be financially successful.

[UnsaneLily87]

Posted: 12/7/04 at 7:32pm

Thanks Margo. I haven't been "around" long enough to know all of that stuff--but basically, my point was that regardless of what the critics say, there are very few plays that can be considered "successes"

And that's too bad, because honestly, I can't think of very many musicals that have "touched my soul" so to speak. Les Miz, Rent, Bare...Avenue Q? Beyond that, most of the stuff I've seen I can classify under "enjoyable" or something similar.