Was Matilda kicked out of Broadway?

Of course it was

St James is a Jujamcyn theatre, not a Schubert house.

I find the logistics and economics of the last decade or so of Broadway absolutely fascinating. So much power is held by a relatively small group of people, and it’s wild to see how they leverage their status and connections with others. I would devour a book about it if anyone were to write one.

inception said: "St James is a Jujamcyn theatre, not a Schubert house."

Schubert does not own theatres on Broadway. It's Shubert. I am not really a nit-picker but every so often this needs to be corrected so it is not reinforced.

Broadway Flash said: "I don't understand why he didn't put it in the St James. It's where Hello Dolly! originally played, and in my opinion a superior theatre than the Shubert."

Why do you think the St. James is superior? Just curious :)

re "disbursement of power"

I was unclear on whether the question was about landlords, producers, or both.

I think it is fair to say that the landlord power distribution in, say, 1955, was significantly greater because there were a lot more theatres and a lot more of them were individually owned. There were also more that were operated largely with the owner functioning generally as the actual producer of the shows seen there (such that any question of connections would have been in one or a few brains).

I think producing then (albeit in a far different landscape) was pretty concentrated. If this is mostly about Rudin, it's worth noting that he spent all of his producing life emulating (for better or worse) his mentor, Kermit Bloomgarden, and David Merrick, a person whose shtick he copied pretty transparently.

Putting these pieces together, I do think it is fair to say that things are more disbursed now than then.

HogansHero said: "If this is mostly about Rudin, it's worth noting that he spent all of his producing life emulating (for better or worse) his mentor, Kermit Bloomgarden, and David Merrick, a person whose shtick he copied pretty transparently."

Been thinking about this comment.

Rudin's fatal flaw was that he never had the longerm foresight for musicals that Merrick had. Someone once quipped "Alex Cohen sold tickets, David Merrick sold shows," and I think Rudin was more like Alex in this case. With the singular exception of MORMON (for which the day to day was run by other people post-opening), people like Jeffrey Seller and David Stone have had far better success on the Merrick model of musical producing.

Scott was crippled by his ego, his drive for quantity, and his unwillingness to go out-of-town for shows. The "snob hit" and prestige is what fueled him, possibly because of his constant wish to transcent his own middle-class Long Island upbringing, and informed by his various mental-health problems.

But to the original question: Matilda was just an expensive show to run. All the children and with the Union rules, etc, made it very expensive to run. And I think that’s why they closed it. They made their money and probably realized rent were just breaking even. The show is still running in London but their Union rules are different there.

Broadway Flash said: "Given what Scott Rudin did to Beetlejuice, did he demand the Shuberts give him the Shubert Theatre for his revival of Hello Dolly!?"

That's not really how it works. However, Matilda had in fact reached grosses that activated the stop clause. I'm not quite sure of the details, and Rudin certainly wanted the Shubert for Hello, Dolly. But he was given a choice between the Imperial (which would allow Matilda to try and run one more season) or the Shubert. I'd heard it was Bette Midler who insisted on the Shubert.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "JanMaxwellsBag said: "I still would love to read a book or long form article about some recent producing and how they interact with the theater owners and landlords."

Without getting too granular, this is a broad approximation of how the process works between producer and theatre owner:

– Producer has a show. They begin talks with theatre owner(s) with whom they have connections. Inviting them to readings, sending the script, etc.
– Eventually, meetings happen between the producer and individual theatre owners. Sometimes the producer might attend with a secret weapon (the star of the show, the authors, etc) in an attempt to woo.
– It generally boils down to a producer working with one theatre owner, depending on personal connections, interest, scope of show, etc. If you're a play, you're probably gonna be working with the Shuberts because they have a ton of play houses; any show that could play the Jacobs could also play the Lyceum or Schoenfeld or JEJ. There is rarely any "choosing" a theatre unless you happen to have a mega-star with opinions; it is a numbers matter...OR, if you're a giant musical with ultra-specifics, that makes things more challenging because that usually means there's only a couple of houses that could fit your show....OR, in a very very rare & unique situation of a hot show, producers might solicit "bids," as the HARRY POTTER producers did.
– Eventually the theatre owner calls and says "you're next." This can be with 9 months notice or with 9 weeks notice –– but it shouldn't be a total shock, since the producer & theatre owner have been in touch about timeline and feasibility and star availability and such.
– Throughout the show process, the theatre owner and producer remain in touch. There will also be contact between the landlord and General Management firm on legal, logistical, contract matters.
–If a show is selling badly, the theatre owner will tell the producer "you need to close by X date." Things like this happenvia phone. The "stop clause" is a legal move that is rarely invoked unless absolutely necessary. The producers want to stay in the good graces of the owner, and the owner usually doesn't need to go that far. Almost always, everyone is in agreement when a show is not selling tickets and burning money."

Sometimes the theatre operator doesn’t hold all the cards, especially with a hot ticket elsewhere. The Phantom of the Opera was offered the current Majestic by Shubets, Minskoff by Nederlanders and Al Hirschfeld by Jujamcyn.

I believe similar with Harry Potter, was also offered a theatre by the big 3, cannot remember which now?

So the boot can be on the other foot, especially if a big name is attached with a show that hasn’t played elsewhere.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "There is rarely any "choosing" a theatre unless you happen to have a mega-star with opinions; it is a numbers matter...

A producer like Rudin or Macintosh have a bit of sway as well, but the landlord ultimately makes the decision. Dear Evan Hansen was going to go to the Schoenfeld, but was then moved to the Belasco (not sure why). But then it became a logistics issue, when it was determined it could not fit into the Belasco and was then moved to the Music Box.

OR, in a very very rare & unique situation of a hot show, producers might solicit "bids," as the HARRY POTTER producers did.

All Broadway landlords offered Harry Potter the house of their choice (they were all willing to bare the costs of the transfer). Dont forget, Cirque had a long-term lease arrangement at the Lyric that was bought out by ATG.

the theatre owner will tell the producer "you need to close by X date." Things like this happenvia phone. The "stop clause" is a legal move that is rarely invoked unless absolutely necessary.

It's semantics. Telling them they need to close is a de facto invocation of the stop clause. It means the show has met the requirements and the landlord has the right to evict. It's similar to a Cease and desist notice, which isn't technically part of the legal process. Where it differs is that the producer has very little option to fight. So legal action is never really necessary. Beetlejuice outright stated tge stop clause was invoked...there were no lawyers involved and yet here we are.

Almost always, everyone is in agreement when a show is not selling tickets and burning money."

Except we know that's not necessarily true. Phantom was bleeding money since reopening but there was no stop clause. Spider-Man had no intention of closing...how long had that been running without earning anything back? Producers have egos, and unless they've been promised that same theatre for another show they are producing, they do everything to keep it running.