Theatre too expensive, says Catherine Tate

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 1:20am

Costly tickets make theatre "elitist", Doctor Who star Catherine Tate has warned as she prepares to tread the boards again in London's West End. "If you want more people to come to the theatre, don't put the prices at £50," she told the BBC's Razia Iqbal.

The TV actress said she would "happily" take a pay cut if it meant more people could afford to see her on stage. "You have to make theatre inclusive, and at the moment the prices are exclusive," she continued. Tate is currently rehearsing her new play Under the Blue Sky, which begins previews next week at London's Duke of York's theatre. First staged at the Royal Court in 2000, David Eldridge's play casts her as a teacher who has a fling with one of her colleagues.

You have to make theatre inclusive, and at the moment the prices are exclusive
Catherine Tate. Her co-stars include Francesca Annis and Chris O'Dowd, from Channel 4 sitcom The IT Crowd. Tate's comments coincided with the publication of a Society of London Theatre report that reveals the West End had its most successful year since records began in 2007. The 40-year-old was last seen on the London stage in 2005 alongside former Friends star David Schwimmer in the play Some Girls.
West End actress speaks out on Ticket Price and Stunt Casting

[broadwaybelter]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 1:23am

Interesting, though not plausible...

[ko74612]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 2:17am

It's good that she would take a pay cut, but would the rest of the cast agree? maybe not.

80% of shows don't recoup their investment as is. The ticket prices are costly, but so is mounting a multi-million dollar production.

The rise in technology and its effect on modern media (televison, movies, ect.) has created an increased demand for special effects and large spectacle. The result is an expectation that theater just cannot provide.

A movie can operate on a multi-million dollar budget and recoup its investment in the opening weekend. because theater is such an individual experience and does not have the capacity to cater to the same audiences, it cannot be expected to operate on the same budget and give the same experience. But unfortunately, it is. and it just cannot compete with modern media.

People need to learn to appreciate theater for the art that it is and appreciate the its unique experience. Movies and tv are recorded and immortalized. Theater can never be duplicated. That is the sheer beauty of it. You have just experienced something that only a small number of people will ever experience. That is special.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 2:35am

"People need to learn to appreciate theater for the art that it is and appreciate the its unique experience...Theater can never be duplicated. That is the sheer beauty of it. You have just experienced something that only a small number of people will ever experience. That is special."

Nicely expressed!...indeed, theater is an extremely special and individual experience, though, at the same time shared with many. As in daily life, the moments we live are unique for that moment;theater is just a more condesed version of unique moments, displayed onstage. And if it's well represented, it is a wondrous art :]

[commasplice]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 3:11am

Dear GOD I love Catherine Tate (and not just for this; she's a fantastic actress and ridiculously funny). She's right that theater is becoming prohibitively expensive (has been for a while now; see all of our past bitching about Broadway/West End/touring ticket prices on this board), and good on her for being willing to take a pay cut if it meant that could be counteracted, but I doubt many others would follow her lead.

[antonijan]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 3:45am

Rush, lotto and promotions are a good equalizer...
vote for me so I can see ACL

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 9:13am

Compared to the cost of living, London theater is cheaper than NYC.

A good West End ticket may be £50-£60 (which is $100-$120), but in terms of drinks at a bar or McD's happy meals or whatever, it's much cheaper in London. (Since the cost of everything over there, along with wages, is more in dollar terms.) I wonder what she'd think about NYC prices!

[toanythingtaboo 2]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 9:48am

I agree with what's been said.

Things do get very expensive, but there are reasons for the prices.

However, you can see some of the biggest shows for 25 quid. Whether it be sitting at the back or via the lotto/student rush/day seats. If you want it that much and can't afford it, put a little effort in and find out about these things.

The good thing about the prices of tickets is the fact it 'filters' out people who don't really care. Take cinemas for example, you nearly always get some idiotic teenagers just messing about.

But you (usually) don't get that in theatre, because everyone has shelled out more. There's an element of one either going to a show as a treat, so you appreciate it more...or you are a regular theatre goer and just really enjoy the culture. Either way, there's respect and a certain air of culture in the audience.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 9:53am

"The good thing about the prices of tickets is the fact it 'filters' out people who don't really care."

Unfortunately, we don't necessarily see that in the US. Theater manners have declined over the last several years. And as the price escalates, audience members feel more entitled.

[NDR]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 10:22am

I agree with GothamPC that theatregoers are feeling more entitled especially when it comes to cell phones and texting. While watching Boeing Boeing last week, a woman's phone rang several times and she proceeded to answer it and have a conversation!! The next night at In the Heights, a girl and her bf in front of use couldn't stop texting and chatting throughout the entire show. So rude!

You paid to see it now let yourself actually see it - turn OFF the cell phone - not just mute or vibrate or beep or... turn it OFF!
I paid just as much as you did (hopefully less) and I want to see the show - not you.

I do wish though that all tickets were 50% the day of and that some of lottos and rush were not limited to students.

Posted: 7/9/08 at 10:31am

Yes yes yes theater tickets ARE too expensive- and every child should have a pony. Get right on that Cathy.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 10:40am

A good West End ticket may be £50-£60 (which is $100-$120), but in terms of drinks at a bar or McD's happy meals or whatever, it's much cheaper in London.

Not when I was there in April. I had breakfast at McDonald's and it is around the same price as Times Square (Copenhagen costs more, however). The one edge the West End has over Broadway with regards to tickets is a broader price range. Very few Broadway shows even offer ticket prices under $50, whcih means you have to cross your fingers for TKTS or lottery and maybe rush tickets if any shows offer them and you meet the criteria.

It's good that she would take a pay cut, but would the rest of the cast agree? maybe not.

I doubt it unless they are receiving star salaries. Broadway star salaries are obscene and only contribute to the problem. When I think of what people like Michael Crawford, Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick or Julia Roberts makes per week, and then look at Equity scale for chorus or even supporting roles in the same shows, and add "premium" prices for what used to be plain old orchestra seats, I get physically ill.

[Patash]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 10:43am

I'm curious what price she would be suggesting. TKTS in London makes shows even more accessible than the same operation does for Broadway. Practically everything but a small handful of the most popular shows are regularly avaiable for half price. In addition, unlike Broadway, most London theatres have a much wider range of ticket prices -- and unlike Broadway some of those prices apply to seats that aren't simply in the back couple rows of the balcony.
In fact Under the Blue Sky currently sells tickets directly through the Ambassadors box office in several rows (including front row) for previews at 15 pounds, and after opening for 25 pounds. So if she thinks 15 or 25 pounds is still too much, what does she suggest?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 10:51am

One of the things that has always bothered me is that Broadway charges the same price for a preview as it does for the regular run. I wish that producers would discount the preview shows.

Also, IMO, the West End has better talent than Broadway. Actors in the West End really know how to act.

[Okayfine]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 10:55am

"Theater manners have declined over the last several years. And as the price escalates, audience members feel more entitled."
You got THAT right, goth!

I hold a fairly unpopular view about theatre pricing. While I would LOVE to have Broadway more accessible price-wise because I love theatre & wish to share it w/ everyone, doing so, means the product is available to everyone. Logical, right?

Okay, here's the problem: where is it written that every product must be accessible to every person? I love diamonds, but cannot afford big, perfect ones ... so I buy smaller, imperfect ones. I want a Prius, but cannot yet afford it, so I continue to drive my 1999 Prizm & SAVE for the Prius. If I want to go to theatre, but cannot afford a $120 ticket, I either save for it, make a decision about where to cut so that I can reassign those budgetary dollars to theatre tickets, or fulfill my theatre needs with non-Broadway productions.

And I don't think that makes me elitist at all.
Updated On: 7/9/08 at 10:55 AM

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 10:56am

I use them, but rushes and lottos are insulting. As Tate suggested, theater should be inclusive, ESPECIALLY to students (not that I am one any longer). If you watch the Golden Age of Broadway movie and hear those stars talking about how theater cost less than a movie ticket, it really makes you sad about how we have to experience theater today. Like Sondheim said in that movie, theater has become a special experience - one where if we don't feel we truly got our money's worth, we still give a standing ovation at the end of the show just to make us feel like we did. Theater isn't supposed to be this. Until recent history, theater WAS the great equalizer - everyone could go see it. Yes, there have always been "sections" (think the Globe), but everyone was able to go. It's hard to lament the state of theater artistically when the producers have priced themselves out of any but the rarest show that dares to be different or unique. How many retreads of movies and jukebox musicals have we seen in the past decade? Not that some of these can't be good and artistic in their own right, but at the prices we're seeing now, people don't want to pay for an unknown quantity. It's AMAZING to me that a show like In the Heights (which I loved) is being even remotely successful, given the climate of the theater world due to prices.

Back to my original statement: those of us (which, I gather is most of us on this board) shouldn't be forced to deal with lottos or rushes or even have to pay 60 dollars a ticket on discount because we CAN'T AFFORD THE REGULAR PRICES. I make a decent living, but there's no WAY I am ever going to pay 125 dollars for just myself (and I almost never pay for just myself) plus train fare or parking plus dinner for one night's entertainment.

I truly believe that high prices have chased away a LOT of people who otherwise would love to go to the theater. If the prices were lowered, I think more people would go, thus creating the same amount of business -- unfortunately, today's market is all about making the most money THE QUICKEST WAY POSSIBLE.

It's a damn shame.

[toanythingtaboo 2]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 12:11pm

Tickets wouldn't be as expensive as they are for no reason.

Shows these days tend to have millions upon millions invested in them.

They have to pay for the cast, crew and staff, the 'stars' of course can cost great amounts to pay.

The hiring/maintenance etc of the theatre itself.

...how would they recoup and pay for everything if the ticket prices were reduced dramatically?

We would end up with less shows because finding investors to back them knowing it would take twice as long to get their money back, if at all.

You'd probably also find that shows would reduce in spectacle dramatically and less new and daring ideas would be approached.

Plus, the fact the West End & Broadway are huge Tourist attractions, which makes up a lot of the income for London and New York.

Essentially, people can bitch and moan about the prices all they want...but what can really be done?

[Patash]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 2:40pm

Speaking of the high cost of tickets, what annoys me even more than the actual price being charged by the producers or the theatres, is the wildly popular use of scalpers. There are hundreds of tickets available to shows like Jersey Boys and South Pacific -- but not at the theatres. You have to use one of the scalpers who bought the tickets out and now resells them for $300 to $500 and MORE each. The saddest part of that is that it is working, as there are obviously plenty of people willing to buy these tickets at those prices, and scalpers are buying out more and more shows all the time.
Fortunately scalping has not reached the rampant proportions in London that it has on Broadway.

Posted: 7/9/08 at 2:45pm

Patash that PROVES that ticket prices are TOO LOW. The demand is such people will happily pay two, three or even five times face value to see the show they want.

[Patash]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 2:55pm

Yes, but sadly the ones who are willing to pay that are all those rich out of towners and business people who NEED to return home and say "we saw _________ on Broadway", while those who want to see lots of good theatre often can't afford to thanks to all those "expense account" execs who can. Meanwhile I wish those big profits could at least be going back to the production (isn't that why they started premium seating?) rather than some non-affiliated scalpers making the big bucks.

[Hest882]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 4:55pm

What Jasonf said.

It's a horrible spiral too. They produce greater spectacles to appeal to the broadest audience so they have to charge higher ticket prices. But because they charge higher ticket prices larger segments of the population can't afford it so they continue increasing ticket prices to make up for the volume. And so on.

In addition:

- As more people are shut out from the theatre it, like classical music and opera, gains an elitest reputation that makes it less likely to appeal to the general public. Thus the potential audience eventually gets more narrow.
- Plus, in an environment with such bloated costs you have less appetite for risk-taking AND there's less of a chance that even a great show will be allowed to play long enough to gain an audience. It's the same issue facing movies right now.
Updated On: 7/9/08 at 04:55 PM

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 5:06pm

You know, that's a point I meant to bring up also Hest -- movies are getting just as bad, if not on the scale. Since I'm off for the summer, I've spent a lot of the last couple of weeks holed up in my house working on my writing. Yesterday I ventured out to see a movie (Wanted - way better than I expected, but I digress) and was AMAZED to see that the matinee prices at the theater I go to that JUST LAST summer were only 5.25 had gone up to 7.50! It just so happens on Tuesdays they have their "discount" day where all movies all day are 5.75. Now, that's been a bargain for regular movies for years, but that's fifty cents higher than what was NORMAL last summer!

All of this is a huge blinking spectacular neon sign that we're in a recession, and that this divide between those who can afford entertainment and those who can't is going to continue to widen. I don't know where the breaking point will be that people will simply stop being able to afford movies (let alone theater) but it's coming...

[Weez]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 5:07pm

Mister Matt: Tony Vincent has a good point. Compare the US minimum wage with the UK minimum wage, bear in mind that it's seemingly perfectly legal for some in the US to not even get paid minimum wage (expected to make it up with tips and so forth), and do a maths. $110 for Broadway and £55 for West End is pretty much the same. But you'd have to work more minimum wage hours in the US to afford a show than you would in the UK.

I now concede that I was being too rigid in my thinking a little while back when I said $110=£55 ergo Broadway=West End. For me it is, 'cos I'm paying the same cost out of my pocket, but comparing working hours and minimum wages, I feel much happier. :)