Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Ah, the "What's Wrong with Broadway?" meme
It rears its ugly head about as often as we hear "Where are the women in...[fill in the blank]?" meme here in Silicon Valley. It's the "What's wrong with Broadway?" meme, and having lived in NYC in the late 80s, you can imagine I've heard that question a time or two.
Kimberly Kaye tackles the issue for, of all things, The Economist. I didn't even know they had more of a lifestyle outlet entitled "Intelligent Life".
A factor Kaye brings up that I really hadn't thought about was the economy's impact not on Broadway, but on significant Off-Broadway houses...many have closed, apparently. And that leaves certain shows with more quirk, less sure-fire spectacle, with nowhere else to go but to attempt Broadway. Sometimes it works; often it doesn't.
It's a good read, and as she points out: Nothing new is wrong, specifically, with Broadway. Broadway has long been the most commercial of enterprises, vs. purely an artistic enterprise, and therefore it lives and dies by tourists and their dollars.
Could producers examine the model of lowering prices to bring in a higher volume of audience member? I think they should. It's part of a vicious cycle that's been going for decades...spectacle begets cost. Cost begets higher ticket prices. Higher ticket prices begets expectations of something "spectacular" is going to happen. Expectations beget spectacle. And so on. And this all also begets more dependence on tourists vs. theatre-loving locals.
Vicious circle, as I mentioned.
Here in the Bay Area, over the last few years my theatre-going habits have changed dramatically as I've had less time...but also due to that expectations cycle.
Of course, 42nd Street Moon is always on my list, since I'm on their board. And one of the things I like most about their productions is the intimate space and unamplified voices.
But my other theatre-going has shifted from a brief subscription with TheatreWorks and a very long-term subscription to American Musical Theatre of San Jose (AMT) to the more recent 3 years my S.O. and I have been subscribers to San Jose Rep.
With TheatreWorks, I felt like the prices (and local media hype) begat expectations they couldn't live up to for me. I wanted a level of quality I didn't feel I was getting for the price.
With AMT, I felt like they were resorting to more and more old and tired fare...to fill a 3,000 seat theatre they couldn't really be too out there...not too dissimilar from Broadway I suppose. When it became clear that our subscription was always going to include way more Camelot and Music Man than Spring Awakening or Assassins, we moved on from that subscription too.
Now, with San Jose Rep, we're seeing way fewer musicals, more straight plays.We're seeing more new works. We're seeing things we haven't see (a hundred times) before. And we really like it. And think we're getting our money's worth.
But it is not a big, commercial, for-profit theatre. And it likely never could be.
What's wrong with Broadway: The same thing that was always wrong with it.
But what's right with Broadway also remains: Amazing talent. Beauty, not just spectacle. The shared, live experience of something you can't get anywhere else.
I'm heading to NYC in late January, and I'll be saving an evening for Broadway, no doubt about it.
Kimberly Kaye tackles the issue for, of all things, The Economist. I didn't even know they had more of a lifestyle outlet entitled "Intelligent Life".
A factor Kaye brings up that I really hadn't thought about was the economy's impact not on Broadway, but on significant Off-Broadway houses...many have closed, apparently. And that leaves certain shows with more quirk, less sure-fire spectacle, with nowhere else to go but to attempt Broadway. Sometimes it works; often it doesn't.
It's a good read, and as she points out: Nothing new is wrong, specifically, with Broadway. Broadway has long been the most commercial of enterprises, vs. purely an artistic enterprise, and therefore it lives and dies by tourists and their dollars.
Could producers examine the model of lowering prices to bring in a higher volume of audience member? I think they should. It's part of a vicious cycle that's been going for decades...spectacle begets cost. Cost begets higher ticket prices. Higher ticket prices begets expectations of something "spectacular" is going to happen. Expectations beget spectacle. And so on. And this all also begets more dependence on tourists vs. theatre-loving locals.
Vicious circle, as I mentioned.
Here in the Bay Area, over the last few years my theatre-going habits have changed dramatically as I've had less time...but also due to that expectations cycle.
Of course, 42nd Street Moon is always on my list, since I'm on their board. And one of the things I like most about their productions is the intimate space and unamplified voices.
But my other theatre-going has shifted from a brief subscription with TheatreWorks and a very long-term subscription to American Musical Theatre of San Jose (AMT) to the more recent 3 years my S.O. and I have been subscribers to San Jose Rep.
With TheatreWorks, I felt like the prices (and local media hype) begat expectations they couldn't live up to for me. I wanted a level of quality I didn't feel I was getting for the price.
With AMT, I felt like they were resorting to more and more old and tired fare...to fill a 3,000 seat theatre they couldn't really be too out there...not too dissimilar from Broadway I suppose. When it became clear that our subscription was always going to include way more Camelot and Music Man than Spring Awakening or Assassins, we moved on from that subscription too.
Now, with San Jose Rep, we're seeing way fewer musicals, more straight plays.We're seeing more new works. We're seeing things we haven't see (a hundred times) before. And we really like it. And think we're getting our money's worth.
But it is not a big, commercial, for-profit theatre. And it likely never could be.
What's wrong with Broadway: The same thing that was always wrong with it.
But what's right with Broadway also remains: Amazing talent. Beauty, not just spectacle. The shared, live experience of something you can't get anywhere else.
I'm heading to NYC in late January, and I'll be saving an evening for Broadway, no doubt about it.
Labels: AMTSJ, Broadway, San Jose Rep, The Economist, TheatreWorks
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Broadway coming back to San Jose
Team San Jose, the city organization that books the San Jose Center for Performing Arts, announced a partnership with the Nederlander organization to bring national tours of Broadway musicals back to San jose for the 2009-2010 season.
You can read all about it in the Merc.
While I'm glad, in general, to get more theatre to San Jose, it's still a shame for local actors and workers. Their inaugural season does look fun...including Spamalot, Avenue Q and Spring Awakening, any of which I would see.
But will future seasons be as current and interesting, or will we be back to tours of Sound of Music with Debbie Boone?
What do you think of this new plan?
You can read all about it in the Merc.
While I'm glad, in general, to get more theatre to San Jose, it's still a shame for local actors and workers. Their inaugural season does look fun...including Spamalot, Avenue Q and Spring Awakening, any of which I would see.
But will future seasons be as current and interesting, or will we be back to tours of Sound of Music with Debbie Boone?
What do you think of this new plan?
Labels: AMTSJ, broadway in san jose
Thursday, December 04, 2008
More on AMT's demise
This time from the Bay Area Stage blog.
Like the BAS blogger I am totally both bemused and amused by the Theatre of the Stars president's comment:
Reminds me of John McCain's contention that he had to go negative because Obama didn't want to do 16 town hall meetings. As though one had anything to do with the other.
Grumble grumble.
Like the BAS blogger I am totally both bemused and amused by the Theatre of the Stars president's comment:
"...we were working with them behind the scenes on solutions. San Jose apparently took matters into its own hands and sent out a press release [on Monday]"
Reminds me of John McCain's contention that he had to go negative because Obama didn't want to do 16 town hall meetings. As though one had anything to do with the other.
Grumble grumble.
Labels: AMTSJ
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Wow, did you hear the one about AMTSJ?
And the fact that it's closing!!!???
And all because another theatre (Theatre Under the Stars in Atlanta) totally screwed them. I mean totally. I mean, it sounds like they basically stole money from them.
Details in this Merc piece.
I was a subscriber to AMTSJ for many years. I didn't actually mind when they transitioned to doing mostly tours and contracted shows with non-locals. I thought the quality actually went up a bit when they started doing that, as sacrilegious as that might sound. We finally didn't renew our subscription a couple of years ago...after about 15 seasons.
It was mostly the fact that they started producing only "crowd pleasers"...including showing many shows I never really needed to see again, let alone every five years, which is how it felt. Shows like Music Man and South Pacific and Camelot. Yawn.
Still, I am very sorry to see such an ignominious end to a local institution.
Again: Wow.
And all because another theatre (Theatre Under the Stars in Atlanta) totally screwed them. I mean totally. I mean, it sounds like they basically stole money from them.
Details in this Merc piece.
I was a subscriber to AMTSJ for many years. I didn't actually mind when they transitioned to doing mostly tours and contracted shows with non-locals. I thought the quality actually went up a bit when they started doing that, as sacrilegious as that might sound. We finally didn't renew our subscription a couple of years ago...after about 15 seasons.
It was mostly the fact that they started producing only "crowd pleasers"...including showing many shows I never really needed to see again, let alone every five years, which is how it felt. Shows like Music Man and South Pacific and Camelot. Yawn.
Still, I am very sorry to see such an ignominious end to a local institution.
Again: Wow.
Labels: AMTSJ
Friday, March 07, 2008
Avenue Q is NOT a cynical show
Happy to see the Merc's entertainment blog tout the arrival of Avenue Q in S an Jose next year at AMT.
Think Karen D'Souza misses the mark a bit, though, when she says: "This is musical theater for the Jon Stewart generation. Cynicism is in. Sequins, out."
I found Avenue Q to be anything but cynical. In the end I loved this show as much as I did because I actually cared more for the hopes and dream of these puppets than I did about a lot of the characters I do in other big Broadway musical productions.
When Kate Monster sings "It's a Fine, Fine Line" to end Act 1, she's speaking for every one of us who has been in that "Is/he or isn't s/he interested in me?" situation...it's a modern and spot-on take on unrequited like.
I agree this is not your typical musical, and that it's a musical for people who think they ahte musicals, but I would never tell you that it doesn't have a big, big heart. because I think it does.
Think Karen D'Souza misses the mark a bit, though, when she says: "This is musical theater for the Jon Stewart generation. Cynicism is in. Sequins, out."
I found Avenue Q to be anything but cynical. In the end I loved this show as much as I did because I actually cared more for the hopes and dream of these puppets than I did about a lot of the characters I do in other big Broadway musical productions.
When Kate Monster sings "It's a Fine, Fine Line" to end Act 1, she's speaking for every one of us who has been in that "Is/he or isn't s/he interested in me?" situation...it's a modern and spot-on take on unrequited like.
I agree this is not your typical musical, and that it's a musical for people who think they ahte musicals, but I would never tell you that it doesn't have a big, big heart. because I think it does.
Labels: AMTSJ, Avenue Q, san Jose Mercury
