The New Yorker's Capitalist Broadway

In John Lahr's negatively-neutral PACIFIC OVERTURES review in this week's issue of 'The New Yorker' he states:

"To be lectured on the corruption of capitalism from the Broadway stage is rather like being taught the virtues of chastity from a whore."

Thoughts? Do you agree? Disagree?

---

He said that in a review of Pacific Overtures? That obvious money-making vehicle? Yeah-huh.

Well, my problem with Lahr (whom, generally speaking, is somebody I respect) here is that his criticism seems a bit misplaced concerning this particular show and this particular theatre company. While, yes, "Pacific Overtures" is technically playing on a Broadway stage, it is, however, a non-money-making limited engagement and a production of the not-for-profit Roundabout Theatre Company.

Roundabout's ability to produce theatre is the result of an almost socialist model -- their operating budget consists of money that is donated to them by the federal, state and local governments, as well as corporations and private individuals (who get tax deductions for any money donated) and subscribers who get to see a series of plays for a substantial discount. That money is used to produce seven plays at two Broadway and one off-Broadway space. If ticket sales and donations exceed costs for a given year, then that money goes back in the kitty and goes towards producing seven more shows for next season -- no "profits" are doled out to "investors" (because there are no investors and no profits to be had); if they have a bad season at the box office and there's a shortfall, oh well, that's paid either out of their endowment or else they just have to raise more money for next year.

Last I checked, if an entity doesn't at least have the possibility of profit, then it cannot be described as being "capitalist." While, to be sure, lots of money exchanges hands and has to be spent, by the company and by ticket buyers (of which Lahr, as a reviewer, is not one), as far as Roundabout and the rest of the not-for-profit theatre world is concerned, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF PROFIT and hence the show can hardly be deemed to be a product of capitalism. Add to that, the one earlier Broadway incarnation of "Pacific Overtures" which did come out of a commercial setting, flopped terribly and lost its entire investment.

Lahr's argument here is utterly specious.

---

Updated On: 12/13/04 at 09:25 PM

Lahr used to be a very bright and eloquent writer on theatre at one point, but in the last couple of years (notwithstanding his stellar work on the book of Elaine Stritch At Liberty and the occasional perceptive review) he, like several of his colleagues, seems to have lost his passion for criticism. Embarassingly, his reviews these days more often than not consist almost entirely of long overly detailed plot summaries (he has been known to give away important plot twists and even the ending of many plays). Add him to the long list -- Brantley, Barnes, Kissel, Le Sourd, Simon, of course -- in desperate need of forced retirement.

---

Updated On: 12/13/04 at 09:52 PM

My mom, who only really knows about Sondheim or Broadway thru me and her experiences thru me, subscribes to the New Yorker and called me after reading that review and said "I get the impression Lahr dislikes Sondheim..."

I thought it was a horrible review--he hardly actually reviews the *current production*, rather he reviews the show itself, and he blames everything on Prince and Sondheim living Weidman in the clear (he only mentions Weidman in one sentence where he says he writes a tight book or something)

Piss poor

E

Well, it's true that Company was Sondheim's big emergence. He was considered talented before that, but not huge.

His association with that Stritch woman is the reason he has lost all his sanity. Anyone who has worked with her has never been the same afterwards (including me).

---

I really didn't read it that way- emergence is different than debut.

There's plenty of silliness in that review without that particular sentence, though.