Why did Ragtime fail the first time around?

[musicalbluemirror]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 9:45pm

I just saw a production in downtown manhattan yesterday afternoon and thought that the show itself was great (book,music)
Looking at the original broadway run with the wonderful Brian and Audra... why didnt it succeed the first time around?

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 9:55pm

Because the head of Livent skimmed some of the profits off the top.

I believe the current school of thought is, it would have broken even, had he not done that.

[James885]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 10:07pm

It closed in the red partly because of high running costs, but mostly because of Garth Drabinsky's shady business practices.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 10:10pm

BrAnTLeY

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 10:17pm

I don't think you can blame a financial failure of a show that ran for two years on the critics. Clearly there was a significant audience. The show was just too big, huge cast, huge orchestra, and huge physical production. Top it all off with a company that was practicing some shady business and creative accounting and you have a recipe for a financial flop.

If Brantley was truly to blame the show would not have lasted two years.

[nealb1]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 10:37pm

Well said, Byron. The show probably would have run longer had it not lost Best Musical to "The Lion King."

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 11:16pm

Livent.

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 11:23pm

The Ford Centre for the Performing Arts, aka The Hilton, aka Your Show Will Flop.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 11:25pm

I think they should do the first act of Spiderman at The Hilton and the second act at the Marquis and see how that pans out.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 11:28pm

Because Garth was scamming people and using money Ragtime made to fund his endless tours of Showboat.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 12:40am

IF the show had had a more reasonable break-even of $450K (at the time that was the nut for most big shows) it would have run much longer and turned a profit.

RAGTIME was said cost $10 to $12 million to open. With a nut of $600k per week it needed $31 million a year to meet costs.

In 1998 (1st year on B'way) it grossed $44 million - net profit about $13 million.

In 1999 (2nd full year on B'way) it grossed $33 million) - net profit about $2 million.

All things considered the show should have been a hit. But Garth was playing games with the funds and we'll probably never know for sure. Ovitz pulled the plug - I suspect - to cut of the flow of any further funds to Drabinsky.

Even so, with a $15 million profit RAGTIME should have been considered a success even if those dollars never reached the investors. It was obviously not a FOLLIES type flop which ran a year and half and closed without recovering a penny of its capitalization.

[peerrjb]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 2:59am

I think Ragtime failed because it was a show full of power-ballads masquerading as sincere emotion, with actors standing on stage while the SETS were choreographed behind them, and though the performers were of high quality, it was directed with a sense of territorial-importance, like a large woman at a party who feels she is owed respect solely because she takes up most of the space in the room. Pretense has always stood in the way. The audiences were over it before the second act curtain. And that's too bad. But I really think the show was it's own problem. As George S. Kaufman AND George Abbott said: "Actually, the audience IS always right". Just a thought.

[byebyebaby12]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 3:15am

"I think they should do the first act of Spiderman at The Hilton and the second act at the Marquis and see how that pans out."

You win at life!

Updated On: 8/10/09 at 03:15 AM

[NYC_or_Bust]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 6:11am

Blaxx, The Hilton having had several flops, did house a success at one point after its reopening, "42nd Street"....

[philcrosby]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 9:55am

The only failure RAGTIME had was financial, and it was due to, as always in these cases (see SUNSET BOULEVARD), bad producing.

The score is absolutely brilliant and the show, as proved by the soon-to-be-NYC-bound revival is moving and emotionally riveting.

[Oldschool]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 10:10am

Peerrjb, while I agree that the scenic was overproduced and choreographed, I don't think the score was the problem. Ballads, yes. Power ballads, not really. If that's the case then a lot of other shows are just as and more guilty of that than Ragtime. It's interesting that people keep coming to Brantley's review. My problem with his criticism of the show goes to his complaint that there is both dramatic content and then a song that covers the same territory, in particular Back to Before. My disagreement with this is that I don't view the song and the preceding interaction with father as the same. In the latter, its the action in the present, whereas in the former as presented in the song is the realization and exhumation of all that Mother has been feeling and it goes beyond the immediate dramatic content that the relationship has moved into a new phase.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 10:50am

The show was brilliant in L.A. before it got to Broadway. I saw it four times. Then they put it in that massive warehouse of a theatre in NY, and all the intimacy was swallowed up.

It wasn't the physical size of that production that overwhelmed the story so much as the physical size of the venue. It was the same production and staging in L.A., but they spread out to fill the bigger place and tried to fill a ten million seat house with their performances. But the Shubert Theatre (now gone) was a much better space for it.

They never should have built that steroidal atrocity in NY. It's killed many a show in its short existence.

I also maintain that the L.A. company had better chemistry and synergy. The Broadway company members may have been more distinguished individually, but they didn't gel together as a cast nearly as well. The performances were too isolated. Not sure whether that isolation was due to the bigger space, or the cast's lack of chemistry. But they were definitely isolated performances.

Such a shame.

Now they have a chance to get it right and honor one of the best written shows in the past 30 years. I hope they rise to the occasion.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 11:48am

b12b, you make an excellent point about the intimacy of the venue. The first time I saw Ragtime on Broadway, I was in the 2nd row and was blown away by the piece. The second time I was in the mezzanine, and I literally felt quite removed from the proceedings.

That being said, the DC production definitely has a very intimate feel. I sat in both the orchestra and balcony for that production, and felt a part of the show no matter where I sat.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 11:54am

Wait, what was the shady business the producers were doing?

[Jon]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 12:25pm

Example: Livent owed millions to the company that did the renovation of the theatre in Los Angeles for RAGTIME. Drabinsky gave the construction company several hundred comp tickets for their employers, and then reported those tickes as "sold", eventhough he gave them away. Thge investors were led to believe that the show was selling to capacity, even though probably half of the comp tix were never actually used, resulting in numerous empty seats at what were supposedly "sold out" performances.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 1:16pm

As George S. Kaufman AND George Abbott said: "Actually, the audience IS always right".

There was a a sizable audience for the show. Look at the grosses. First year 96% sold. 2nd year 87% sold. In an 1800 seat theatre.

A for the theatre, while I have never been in the rear mezz for a performance I was given a private tour of teh space just shortly after it opened, and it seemed to me that even from the very last row you had an excellent view. I find that I feel removed from the action when in the rear mezz for most any show.
The Gershwin is bad that way.

However, if you want removed, try the last row of the balcony in the 3200 seat O'Keefe (now Sony) centre in Toronto where CAMELOT premiered (and opened the theatre) in October 1960. You might as well be watching a chamber concert in Yankee stadium!

As for RAGTIME, having seen the show in a number or smaller community theatre and semi-staged concert settings over the past few years.

RAGTIME - original production

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 1:30pm

I agree with those that say it was due to shady financial dealings.

I think it was a hit with many people. Consider that there were two albums produced of the music: the 1998 OBC and the 1996 Concept Album.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 2:32pm

There was a lot of creative bookkeeping going on in the Livent offices. I'm not quite sure exactly how it was done (not being an accountant) but the gist of it was profits from the hit shows were being moved around to fund the other shows that were not doing as well, but from what I understand, that money was never accounted for in terms of where it came from. So though Ragtime may have been making well over its weekly nut, the grosses would not reflect that because profits would be slid over to something like Fosse or Seussical to cover their deficits, thus investors were never seeing a return on what they had put into Ragtime. At least that is my understanding of the situation, in its simplest form. Somebody with a better business sense may be able to explain it better, or tell me that I'm completely wrong in my understanding of what was going on. If that person is reading this, please do correct me.

[nealb1]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 2:34pm

Peerrjb, HUH?

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 5:39pm

Blaxx, The Hilton having had several flops, did house a success at one point after its reopening, "42nd Street"...

You mean, the 2001 FLOP revival of 42nd Street?