financial survival and salaries

[vpgomez]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 7:18pm

I just came from Broadway and watched Nine and La Boheme. I am sad that La
Boheme has to close. Is the reason primarily financial? My first question
is what determines when a show will close financially?
With regards to Nine and the excellent cast, my next question is What is
the range of salaries the stars like Antonio Banderas or Chita Rivera get
for each performance? Is it comparable to what they can make on TV or in
movies?
Thanks
Vincegomez

[Alvin and My Sheepdog Rex]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 7:23pm

For a show like La Boheme 50-55% attendance definitely won't keep the lights on for long.

[Benzy9]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 7:28pm

I read somewhere a while ago that if Brian Stolkes Mitchell does the MOLM tour, he will get 90,000 a week. On Broadway however, he probably gets around 45-50,000. On the other side, chorus members get 1302 a week. A rising star like Marissa Jaret Winokur probably gets a little more than 5,000 a week. Hope this helps a little.

*I'm guessing that Antonio Bandaras gets around 30,000 a week and Chita gets maybe 5,000*

[CJR]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 7:47pm

$90,000? WHERE did you read that ANYONE would get 90,000 a week to tour in a show? That's absurd

[Benzy9]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 7:52pm

It was in Variety like a few months ago... I'll look for the link.

[Benzy9]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 7:53pm

And don't forget... Bernedette Peters got 10% of the gross while she was in Annie Get Your Gun. So when the show was really hot in the beginning and it was doing 800,000, she was getting 80,000 a week.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 8:24pm

well..the success of any show depends on it's ability to make money on it's own and sustain it.

1. Investors choose how much $ and for how long they'll invest.
2. The show either gets in the black and stays there upon it's own strong legs or a).TPTB look for new investors or b). the show folds.

Now that's just the nuts and bolts of a show's success. Dozens of variables come into play. IE: ALW can afford to keep a poorly attended show on Bd'w while it loses money for a longer period of time. But few people have the ability/money to do that these days.

Regarding salaries: $90,000wk. for BSM to tour MOLM is an unbelievably high figure. I would give and educated guess that $10,000 - $15,000 wk. (give or take) would seem more realistic based on what I see other actors in his pay level go out for. Again...just a guess.

Generally speaking, the film & TV pay scale is always higher than stage but also depending on the actor and the investors backing those projects too.

It's a very tough business to be in these days.
Cheers!

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 9:57pm

The AGMA Bohème on Broadway contract, if you're so inclined:

http://www.agmanatl.com/ContractsOpera/BohemeOnBroadway2.htm

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 10:11pm

I don't know why there is so much grieving about LA BOHEME closing. The Metropolitan Opera has scheduled many performances of this beloved opera for next season. It looks like they have some good casts lined up, too. If you say BOHEME on Broadway, see it again at the Met. The production is gorgeous to look at--and there is no amplification: it's all glorious, natural sound!

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 11:15pm

Elaine Stritch pulled down $10,000 per week for her one-woman Broadway show. (But you didn't hear that from me).

[Musetta1957]

Posted: 6/12/03 at 11:41pm

"I don't know why there is so much grieving about LA BOHEME closing."

Because people did like it.

I know that concept can be hard to grasp for some.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 6/13/03 at 7:31pm

Thank you! I find this nuts & bolt aspect of the industry fascinating ( NO sarcasm)

[Alvin and My Sheepdog Rex]

Posted: 6/13/03 at 8:15pm

While not talking specific numbers, I have heard TV Stars and Movie Stars express much admiration for those who perform on Broadway. Broadway performers definitely have to work the hardest day in and day out compared to their TV and Big Screen counterparts.

[KB]

Posted: 6/14/03 at 12:28am

Broadway is definitely less pay than movies or TV, but we do have the screaming audiences that keep stars coming back for more.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 6/14/03 at 11:32am

I find it interesting how many performers, not all, progress. Many successful stage actors seek different roles ,so as to be viewed as versitile and hired, of course. Surprisingly not that many can do this to any "great" extent. I can think of handfull, but I'd better let others name names. LOL!

From there, stage actors get the producer, director bug...and some do pretty well with a few projects. Many try to get into films because of the money and exposure. That's when the numbers dwindle.

But going from film to stage is far more difficult. There's no "CUT! Re-take" on live stages. Again, I can think of a smaller handfull of actors that can successfully work well between both worlds or stage and screen.

Stage actors REALLY have to love doing "live shows"! Because it's one of the most challinging careers in the world. IMHO

Sorry to be so long-winded today.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 6/14/03 at 12:51pm

NO apology necc. I absolutely agree with you re stage to screen vs screen to stage. The skill set (sequential without retakes and POV set ups) is very diff. Plus there is "success-itis" Keeping a performance fresh in along run. Very Different indeed!(which once agin brings us to Melanie G. in Chicago.... )

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/14/03 at 5:11pm

It's not that easy for a stage actor to transition to the screen. In theater, the energy has to be big to fill the theater. On the screen, an actor has to have a more pulled-back type of energy.

[Broadwaylady]

Posted: 6/14/03 at 5:20pm

I also loved La Boheme and will be sad to see it close. I am sure LaBoheme at the Met is wonderful also....I am seeing Nine next week. Melanie you better not be in my line of sight!!!!!!!!! Get thee scrawny body away from me. Me and my friends are kidnapping Antonio.......

[chasing_rainbows43]

Posted: 6/14/03 at 8:20pm

It's definitely not a pulled-back energy, because then you can tell when the performer is holding back. It's more of being able to have that same big energy, yet contain it in an appropriate manner.
~S, who's seen way too many auditions with actors completely pulling in when told to adapt for the camera