West End compared to Broadway

[Dave13]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:04pm

Been to Broadway in New York many times, but never been to London. Strongly considering booking a trip to London and seeing some shows.

Just wondering how do the theaters and shows compare. Are they about same, or much different?

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:06pm

Not so much about the shows but a friend of mine just got back and said they allow you to take pictures before the show starts.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:10pm

I went to the UK in March of 2009 and saw three West End shows. In my (limited) experience, the audiences are more reserved and don't do the auto-standing ovation, and they nicely don't eat during the show. Or if they do, they're pretty quiet about it. The theatres are even less handicapped-accessible than here (no ADA-type law there), if that matters to you.

[abitoftap]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:15pm

Ushers are usually firmer but generally more helpful on Broadway (but need to be considering the inconsistent and non straightforward seat numbering system!).
Theatres in UK generally older, look nicer but (more) uncomfortable. Apart from the New London (old TV studio) no new commmercial theatres. However the National is a gem: location, theatres, foyers, welcoming. Beats the Lincoln Center.
I think there's more of a theater atmosphere on Broadway, and you guys still have the musical show edge.

[abitoftap]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:16pm

Oh yes, in London standing ovations still mean something!

[Patash]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 3:48pm

One major difference. You don't get a free Playbill, or any program at all (except for a simple cast list at The National productions). You must buy a program -- often not very exciting -- and expect to pay a minimum of three pounds and as much as five pounds (that's between $4.75 and $8 US).

I've seen many London shows -- quite a few times the same show I saw on Broadway. I'd be hard pressed to say which is better -- sometimes a London production seems better, sometimes the Broadway seems better.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:41pm

The West End is also a lot more spread out than Broadway. There is a high concentration of theatres around Leicester Square (the home of TKTS in London), but many theatres not located in the immediate area, so don't assume a show will be a quick walk from Leicester Square or Picadilly Circus.

As for quality, I find they are generally at the same level. Occasionally, some London tours will play a limited West End run, but if that concerns you, you can do a bit of research when planning your trip. London generally excels at plays, so if you're accustomed to seeing musicals, you may want to take in a play or two.

Due to their age, most of the theatres have far less leg room than you may be accustomed, especially upstairs.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 9:11pm

Random attacks by drugged up hags, a sow resting her pork loin on my leg for the first half of Blood Brothers, and annoying ice cream slurping into the 2nd act made up 2 out of the 4 performances of the three shows I saw in London back in September, 2010.

Being as Pollyanna as I am, I figured it was an off-week. Whatever that means.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:26am

I love the London stage.

In addition to fantastic talent (as good as Broadway, often better) there is the possibility of seeing British stars you will never see live again. I saw Emma Thompson in "Me and My Girl" and let's face it, they've pretty much wiped her musical theatre career off her "ek-tor" resume now that she's a double Oscar winner.

I got to see the great Roy Castle play Cosmo in "Singing in the Rain" with Tommy Steele - Tommy Steele! at the Palladium and the man sang, tap danced, AND juggled while doing the "Be A Clown" run-up-the-walls-and-backflip number (curious copyright problem with "Make Em Laugh" caused a substitution) and he never dropped a ball.

Oh, and I saw Very elderly Sexy Rexy and very young Zeta Jones.

And seeing a show at Drury Lane, a theater that is as old as America, is sheer heaven.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:34am

I went to London for a month this summer and saw 12 plays with my study abroad class as well as 4 on my own, most of which were in the West End. The most significant difference for me was having to buy programs for all the productions rather than being given a Playbill, but for me they were a nice souvenir of my whole trip since the bulk of my time there was spent seeing/discussing theatre.

I saw some really incredible things there, all with Broadway-caliber (or sometimes better) actors...my favorite things were probably Betrayal with Kristin Scott Thomas, The Beauty Queen of Leenane at the Young Vic, and Journey's End, which was the tour cast playing a stop on the West End.

The theaters are also quite old and really beautiful, that was one of my favorite things about seeing shows there.

Most of the things I saw were plays, but I did see Road Show at the Menier Chocolate Factory and Billy Elliot, and I honestly enjoyed Billy Elliot more than the Broadway production (and I loved the Broadway production).

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 1:04am

After high school in '99 I spent a year living between London and Dublin (my dad was working there) and obviously saw a ton of theatre. I don't think there's a huge difference--as others said shows can be as good or not good as any on Broadway. It's still true that the West End perhaps enjoys lighter weight musicals (jukebox shows and shows that seem to exist solely for hen parties) more than Broadway but increasingly they seem to be even here. And maybe they have more of an emphasis on major productions of plays--it often seems that more shows open for limited runs, but I coul dbe wrong.

As for eating in the theatre, I never had any major problems with it personally but I think people began eating and bringing their drinks into the theatre (and yes the ice cream is massive) way before they did on Broadway.

As others said you have to pay for the program (which for non musicals several times actually came with a cheaply published paperback of the full script in my case), but they tend to be more elaborate than playbills--full colour, more articlers specifically about the show, more photos, often bits of history about the theatre. Still because of this I didn't buy souvenir programs (though only a few shows seemed to have them), something I regret now.

The theatres are nearly all beautiful--inside and out--but yes, often less comfortable. The West End forum onhere has a neat comparison of London marquees compared to New York where theatres are cramped much more together and the exteriors often not elaborate at all. https://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.php?thread=1041232&dt=17&boardid=3

Half price and cheap tickets can be found for nearly everything in my experience at the booth at Leicester Square, except if you want to see something at the National Theatre (and I'd REALLY recommend it, nearly everything they do is worthy of being seen) which doesn't sell there. I found the major theatres are easy to walk between personally, though the National is on the other bank.

[beagle]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 1:10am

I've been to both, and I love both for different reasons. As an Anglophile, I always love British culture, so that's a plus in London, and I think the atmosphere in the theatres at West End shows is more laid back than Broadway. On Broadway, I often felt "herded" into and out of the theatres, while I never felt like that in London. Performance quality, from my experience, is about equal in both cities. I've enjoyed both Broadway and London, but slightly prefer London.

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 01:10 AM

[canmark]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 9:43am

I went to London several years ago and found it similar to Broadway. As others have mentioned, you have to pay for the program, which is fancier than a (free) Playbill. They call the Orchestra section the Stalls (which threw me one time when I asked an usher for the nearest washroom. She said, "Are you sitting in the stalls?" but her pronunciation was something of a cross between "stalls" and "stools" and for a second I didn't know what she was talking about. What did it matter where I was sitting, I thought--I was looking for the washroom. But I guess she wanted to send me to the washroom that was closest to where I was sitting). Their evening performances don't always start at 8:00 pm. They could be 7:30 or 7:45 or 7:15 or whatever. People seem anxious to be able to catch the train home, so the shows are more likely to start earlier. Also, the weekday matinee is not necessarily Wednesday. Some shows have a matinee on Thursday or Friday.

I was there 5 days, but managed to see 7 shows: The Man of Mode (at the National) with Tom Hardy, Hayley Atwell and Rory Kinnear; Daniel Radcliffe in Equus; Elena Roger in Evita; Avenue Q, Billy Elliot, The History Boys, and Cabaret (not the Sam Mendes production). I quite liked Evita, but the audience didn't seem that thrilled, whereas I found that production of Cabaret to be mediocre, yet the crowd was enthusiastic. The History Boys had been re-staged about 3 times in London; it's clearly a show that the Brits like, and the main show I had wanted to see (not having seen it on Broadway). Also, a song like "Merry Christmas, Maggie Thatcher" in Billy Elliot had much more resonance for a British audience than it would for a North American audience.

I don't think there's any difference in the quality of the productions or the acting. Broadway audiences might be more responsive (and fanboy/fangirl-ish), depending on the show. But having been to London only once, I can't speak with any authority.

[Mark_E]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:07pm

In response to the second post, there is no such rule. Photography in an auditorium before the show is not allowed. As is the same in New York, people still do!

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:25pm

I took my first trip to London last November and was shocked by how spread out the theaters are and how expensive the programs are.

Had a wonderful time though.

The other major difference I would cite is that in many venues the cheap seats are still cheap. You aren't paying $66.50 to sit in the last row of the mezzanine.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:56pm

I find theatre in London, on the whole is slightly more civilised affair and is seen as an evening out. By this I mean theatres open earlier, bars are open for a drink ex where as new York everyone queues outside until shortly before show time and the it's a rush in. But new York seems prouder of its theatre culture than London.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 2:01pm

The reason I think shows start at 7.30pm in the West End is because the Tube and train aren't 24 hours and many people will eat before the show rather than after. like Broadway, some shows have 7pm showtimes on the weekday, mid week matinees tend to be Wednesdays but some Tuesday, Thursday or Friday. Only a handful of shows have Friday matinees and they tend to be shorter shows, Sunday Matinees do exist but only a few shows in the West End and The National have them.

[greeny11]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 2:11pm

Mark, photography is certainly allowed at the Prince Edward, Victoria Palace and Dominion, and I imagine some other theatres - it depends which ones you go to.

Programmes also differ between theatres, some do a separate programme (about £3) and brochure (about £6) - but some do a combined brochure/programme instead (£7). They are a lot fancier than playbills, and do contrain a lot more in them, such as production photos, information about the theatre and show etc.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 4:26pm

Where do you get that information? Whether its informed or not can vary from show to show but I don't know of any theatre that allows it. I've been at those shows and heard the no photo rule

[greeny11]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 7:53pm

Maybe it's the ushers, but I've spoken to them at the Victoria Palace and Dominion and they allow photos before the show and at the interval. The Prince Edward policy I know is to allow photos of anywhere bar the stage.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 8:24pm

Photography at the theatre, could easily be dealt with by another thread. I have no such issues with photography of the show curtain, or when the cast are taking their final bow, however during the actual performance it is dangerous.

As for differences between London and New York, there are some major oddity's and they both have their idiosyncrasy's that why I love Broadway as much as the West End!

[Dave13]

Posted: 2/7/12 at 6:42pm

Thanks for the input. I am shooting for booking a trip in May.

I

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 2/8/12 at 3:14pm

I hope you have a great visit, what do you plan to see?

In the West End we have 20 minute intervals, where you get ushers come out and stand in the auditorium, where you can buy a ice cream, which you can enjoy while observing the lowering of the safety curtain if you go to one of the matinee performance, not only some are on a Wednesday, but Tuesdays and Thursdays as well and they generally start 30 minutes later at 2:30, but no matter if you are in the West End or Broadway, you are guaranteed to see some great shows!!

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 2:23am

I wonder what makes more money. Broadway or West End. Tickets are cheaper in London?

[broadwaysfguy]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 2:30am

love all things west end

can't say its better than broadway

it does have a bit more civilized feel I think than bway as it caters more to europeans

It seems that at public music/performance venues english, french, germans and others tend to more thoughtul of others in public venues that americans. A generalization true

but its held true on my dozen or so trips to europe.