Why is it so rare to see actors also serving as producers at the same show in Broadway

[ACLrevivalplease]

Posted: 4/28/25 at 10:42am

I know that in movie industry, many actors take on the role of producers at the same production, but why is it so rare to see in Broadway?

I did some research and found that in the early days of the theater industry, actors could have a stake in the theater and thus hold significant influence in production. But why is that so rare now? Especially for celebrity whose involvement is often a box office guarantee, why don't they take on the role of producer to have more influence?

Sorry if I'm mistaken about any of this, I don't know much about it.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 4/28/25 at 11:07am

A few things to note:

• Being a Broadway producer is an extremely different skillset than being an actor, and it's much healthier to have a separate person producing the show. Very few people have successfuly straddled actor/producer (Jose Ferrer), or writer/producer (R&H, ALW), or director/producer (Hal Prince, Elia Kazan). Shows are also way more expensive & complicated nowadays.
• It's actually more common now on Broadway. George Clooney, Idina Menzel, Kristin Chenoweth, Darren Criss, Jonathan Groff, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Kerry Washington have all been billed as co-producers or lead producers on their respective shows of late, as have writers/directors like Jeremy O. Harris, Tommy Kail, and Marc Shaiman & Scott Wittman. (What actual role they have in the day-to-day producing of their shows is unknown to the general public. It might be a mere negotiation tactic and a "deal-sweetener", an honorary credit where the lead producer will share some reports and hear the actor's ideas, but they're not making day to day decisions. I would not want to be in an advertising meeting where an actor was weighing in on every piece of material that went out.)
• In the film world sometimes those titles are honorary, sometimes they're not. Most crucially in the film world, they're usually not being expected to invest money. If Steven Spielberg is developing a project then decides not to direct it (like MAESTRO), he can retain a producer credit without spending a dime –– and actually collects money to put his name on a film.
• An actor self-producing can make something feel like a Vanity Project.
• Very few actors are generating their own projects for the stage from the ground up, because it takes so long to develop a show (especially a musical). And they aren't truly in control because they don't own the copyright (the playwright owns it - which is different than in the film world, where the studio/producer owns it).

Updated On: 4/28/25 at 11:07 AM

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 4/28/25 at 11:15am

We're starting to see some more of that in the last couple years. Leslie Odom Jr. produced Purlie Victorious, Darren Criss produced Maybe Happy Ending, Kristin Chenoweth will be producing the upcoming The Queen of Versailles. Mainly, it has to do with the difference between Broadway producers and film producers.

When you try to define what the job of a producer is, you can split it into two groups: the producers that raise the money, and the producers that spend the money. In film, where a lot of projects are supported by big studios who already have a lot of money to work with, the producers you see listed in the credits are the former: the ones that come up with the idea for the movie, assemble the cast and crew, and oversee the vision of the production. On Broadway, when you see a long list of producers, the top few are the "spend the money" producers (although they also do a lot of fundraising), and everyone else are purely fundraisers, putting up their own money, or money they manage for investors.

It's also worth noting that just because an actor isn't listed in the credits as a producer, that they are solely hired talent (especially if that actor is a big name). Hugh Jackman had a lot of influence in the recent revival of The Music Man. Jonathan Groff has worked for several years to get Just In Time to Broadway. Idina Menzel had so much input on Redwood that she eventually got "Contributions by" credit. Theatre is inherently collaborative.

Why Broadway actors don't usually put more of a financial stake in their shows... it's probably because they're generally smart with their money. The job of being a "raise the money" Broadway producer is convincing a lot of people to give you a lot of money with a very high chance they will never see it again. In film, even if a movie doesn't break even at the box office, you can still see continuing revenue after the theatrical run, from DVD/Blu-Ray sales, streaming acquisition, cable re-runs, VOD downloads. On Broadway, when your show closes, the income stops. You have a much shorter runway to make your money back, so you don't risk it.

Updated On: 4/28/25 at 11:15 AM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 4/28/25 at 11:24am

ACLrevivalplease said: "I know that in movie industry, many actors take on the role of producers at the same production, but why is it so rare to see in Broadway?

I did some research and found that in the early days of the theater industry, actors could have a stake in the theater and thus hold significant influence in production. But why is that so rare now? Especially for celebrity whose involvement is often a box office guarantee, why don't they take on the role of producer to have more influence?

Sorry if I'm mistaken about any of this, I don't know much about it."

It's very simple:

 

'NEVER PUT YOUR OWN MONEY INTO THE SHOW!!!"

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 4/28/25 at 12:31pm

It's a money raise position. They are either putting in as little as $150-250K themselves or raised through friends to receive billing like that as a producer. Not everyone wants to raise money for their own show. Others, like Darren Criss in MHE, is a different story.

[darquegk]

Posted: 4/28/25 at 5:19pm

The average Broadway actor, even the average Broadway star, is not financially as liquid as the average major movie or TV star. Who's the wealthiest person whose money comes first and foremost from being a Broadway star, and not a film star who does Broadway, or a Broadway star who is an accredited Disney Legend? It's probably someone like Patti LuPone, and I doubt LuPone has the financial wherewithal to primarily bankroll a show herself to the extent of being lead producer. There's big money, and then there's "f*** you money."