Here Comes GODSPELL!

Posted: 5/11/11 at 8:00pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/GODSPELL-on-Track-for-Broadway-Fall-2011-Auditions-Announced-20110511


day by day....

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 8:22pm

And you can be a producer!

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 10:14pm

^ The legality of that situation is so shaky that I'm willing to bet Davenport winds up in court whether this is a hit or not.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 10:26pm

Well, all I've ever financially backed so far has been porn documentaries. Good luck to em. Stephen Nathan's among the donors. Now that was a Jesus.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 10:30pm

So does this mean that if Godspell wins Best Revival, all of these people win Tonys?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 10:36pm

I don't think they have to worry.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 10:37pm

Haha valid.

[egghumor]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 11:44pm

Thinking this production was still aimed at the Ethel Barrymore, I had planned to say that if there was ever a musical NOT meant for Broadway, it's Godspell (the same goes for Little Shop of Horrors – yeah, I know they've both played Broadway already).

After reading the article and the “Be a Producer” page (thanks, guys!) the only positive thing I can muster about the entire enterprise is at least if it HAS to play Broadway, then the Circle in the Square is definitely the best venue possible.

As for this laughable be-a-producer-for-a-mere-hundred-bucks biz, the idea of some savvy business model being in play here is lost on me. Basically I see this scheme as saying: “Do you love Godspell? Wanna see a production of Godspell on Broadway? You do, great! Just buy your tickets in advance and we'll arrange a production for you – and you can call yourself a “theatrical producer” at any opportunity!”

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/11/11 at 11:46pm

A thousand. Minimum. When wilt though tap your savings?

[Parks]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 2:40am

OK, if they can't find real producers to invest in this show, what makes these people think they're going to be able to find audiences that are willing to shell out 100+ dollars for this show?

Don't get me wrong--I love Godspell and I was REALLY excited for this to open a few years ago... but come on, the horse is dead and they just keep on kicking it...

Posted: 5/12/11 at 5:06am

I don't get it, isn't this what shows have done for years except it makes you an invester or a backer, and not a producer? :blink:

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 10:26am

Yes, except no one ever did it in Bialystock-sized amounts of investors and backers like this "innovator." If it flops, he could very easily go to jail in a Producers-type situation for being unable to pay back his "angels" (I find this terminology oddly appropriate when applied to Godspell), unless he's got enough bank stacked away from his Off-Broadway ventures to pay them back, and I highly doubt that's the case.

Updated On: 5/12/11 at 10:26 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 10:33am

I'm weary of this show that no one really wants to happen...

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 10:37am

Truth be told, I am a little biased. There is a better production model on the table that is not the same tired old Godspell, and Mr. Davenport had at one point evinced interest but then dropped contact. Had he gone with the model presented, this nonsense about a community investment would have been dropped, as funding sources are available in abundance for this particular model.

[joegt]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 10:42am

The legality of this is solid. Theatre but its very nature is a high-risk investment whether one invests $1,000 or $100,000. There is absolutely no promise of it paying back a single cent and the regulations are such that this information is stated over and over and over in offering documents. If people want to invest in a musical instead of putting this money on a craps table in Vegas or on a horse in the Kentucky Derby, or buying a year's worth of Powerball tickets, so much the better for the commercial theatre industry. I think it is smart to find a lot of people to give you $1,000 than a few people to give you a lot of money. There are more people that can afford to lose $1,000 than can afford to lose $10k, $25k, $50k or more

[kdogg36]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 11:52am

If it flops, he could very easily go to jail in a Producers-type situation for being unable to pay back his "angels"

Genuine question: have they not been told that this is an investment where they could well lose all their money? Any investment I've ever made comes with red flags to that effect.

EDIT: I think joegt pretty much answered my question before I could ask it. :)
Updated On: 5/12/11 at 11:52 AM

[stone_blue]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 12:03pm

@gvendo, the Bialystock model COUNTS on the show flopping, since the plan is to raise more money than stated, cook the books, and keep the change when the show closes. The producers/investors lose their investment if Godspell fails, which is part of the attraction of the lower-than-normal buy in. If Godspell recoups, they get their money back and maybe more. In terms of theater investing, it's a high risk but relatively low loss opportunity.

I think it's interesting as an experiment. There's a lot of whining about the types of shows that get funded, ie why so many jukebox musicals and lowest-common-denomination fare keeps being churned out by the pretty small group of established producers. This is another, perhaps more effective, way of showing support for certain productions than kvetching on message boards. And it's kind of nice that the pool probably consists of people who really love theater, who probably value that $1000 more than high rollers might value a 100K investment eligible for a write-off. Who knows- maybe one of the small fish will get bitten by the producing bug, and keep investing?

FWIW, I am not in any way associated with Davenport or the Godspell team, nor am I an investor.

[wonkit]

Posted: 5/12/11 at 4:34pm

I think Parks has the right of it on this question. They can't find 200 people to invest $15,000 but they are going forward with x people investing $1,000? Doesn't inspire much confidence in my mind.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 12:00pm

I think it's an interesting idea that could work. I know some people who couldn't afford to pony up $10k to invest in a show, but may find it more reasonable and exciting to put in $1k if it means they get their name on the theatre or in the Playbill as well as the experience of contributing to the creation of a Broadway revival. If you've got the manpower and resources to cast a wider net of smaller investors, why not do so? I like to support not-for-profit theatre companies when I can, but I don't kid myself that I'll see a return in my investment by way of an artistically sound production. It certainly didn't manifest itself in the Goodman's Desire Under the Elms or The Trinity River Plays. So, if I'm willing to contribute for the sake of art, why not try it for profit instead of not-for-profit for a change?

Updated On: 5/13/11 at 12:00 PM

[julesboogie]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 12:14pm

Its high on my list of loved shows. If i had it to give...and i do mean give, id put in.

Just to get it to happen.

[walkedthroughmany]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 12:33pm

Wait, do people really think that they "couldn't find" big producers and "had" to resort to crowd-funding? Really?

I think it's an enormous endeavor (can you imagine organizing that?) and a pretty genius marketing ploy. I think the easy way out would be to find bigger investors, but that's not the point. I think the whole idea behind this revival is to have it be crowd-funded...there's no way it's a "last resort." Even if it fails, I give Ken Davenport credit for being innovative in the world of commercial theatre.

[wonkit]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 7:57pm

It may be clever publicity but it is an onerous administrative burden. Do you know the cost disincentive to having to cut 2,000 checks and mail them, as against 200? Not efficient, therefore doesn't make economic sense. And theater financing is nothing but pure economics.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 8:14pm

^ Thank you wonkit! Also, mixing people and organizations in one investment pool is asking for trouble. Administrative nightmare ahoy!

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/13/11 at 10:06pm

this is moronic. So the investors are doing it just to say "i am a producer/investor in a broadway musica"l because there is no way they are making a dime on this and if they do they will make a dime.

The producer is doing it because no one else will invest in his musical so he is going to people who don't really care so HE can produce a show on broadway even though no one else will invest ergo, the show must not be that intelligent as an investment.

Ego's running wild.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/14/11 at 9:28am

Also, mixing people and organizations in one investment pool is asking for trouble. Administrative nightmare ahoy!

Not really. It's basically the not-for-profit development model and not-for-profit organizations deal with it with very tight budgetary restrictions and far more red tape all year every year, often with a skeleton crew for a team working for peanuts. I was in the thick of it for ten years working for major not-for-profit performing arts organizations in Houston, some of which were facing a million dollar deficit, forcing them to double their fundraising efforts with no budget. And that was asking people for money with the only benefit being a tax deduction (if they have enough deductions and make enough money to qualify). Yes, this venture would require a bit more administrative duties, but mostly in the form of database maintenance once the investment model structure is in place. It will require an increase in budget for administration, printing, postage, etc., but Godspell has the potential to decrease the budget in other areas as compared to most Broadway musicals. Godspell is a fairly inexpensive show to produce, which is one of the reasons it has had such longevity in amateur productions.

I honestly don't think this idea has anything to do with the inability to find major investors. I think it is an experiment using a relatively safe property to see if it works. Probably the only safer property to try this on would be Grease, but Godspell would be cheaper and it has never seen a Broadway revival. Cast it with some tween favorites and it's an attractive deal.