Straight Plays On Broadway - THE END (Literally!)

[CapnHook]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 10:55am

I am doing research for a paper I am writing, and I would like your help.

The topic of my paper is to argue that straight plays are dying on Broadway, and will eventually become extinct.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this issue. Please note that what you submit in this thread may be included (quoted) in the paper. Please comment specifically on one or more of the following:

-Importance of how 'straight plays' shaped our entertainment industry.
-Working together on Broadway: Plays and Musicals
-Musicals overtaking straight plays. Why are musicals more popular?
-Producing a musical, versus a play.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO READ YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS:

-Why do plays struggle to have long runs on Broadway today? Why do plays struggle financially? Do they really struggle at all? Why then are there so few plays on Broadway? Will the 'straight play' die off?

IN ORDER FOR ME TO USE YOUR RESPONSES (both in quotations and in research) YOU MUST PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR AGE. If you feel uncomfortable including your age publically, you may PM it to me.

Also, if you would like to include comments that may help, in which I did not provide topics of discussion for, please do so.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FACTS:

-ON GOLDEN POND is at 48.6% gross.
-JULIUS CASAER (starring Oscar winner Denzel Washington) is at 76.0% gross.
-A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE is at 75.9% gross.
-DOUBT (A Pulizter winner!) is at 72.6% gross.
-THE GLASS MENAGERIE is at 52.3% gross.
-Average gross of musicals which opened this season: 81.2%
-There are 11 plays on Broadway. There are 21 musicals on Broadway. (There are 2 special events on Broadway)

[apdarcey]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 11:01am

this season shows more straight plays opening on broadway than musicals, so i question the validity of your original argument.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 11:11am

If you can challenge my arguement, I would like to hear it. I need to hear from both sides.

However, I believe you are wrong. Last season opened more musicals than plays, did it not? The Frogs, Dracula, Pacific Overtures, All Shook Up, Good Vibrations, Brooklyn, Light on the Piazza, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, La Cage Aux Folles, Little Women, Spamalot, and Spelling Bee as soon as it opens, in addition to Sweet Charity when it opens.

[apdarcey]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 11:17am

this season opened 14 musicals and 18 plays. i think tourism has A LOT to do with musicals' success, but i don't think the longevity of a run or audience attendance numbers are the sole means for determining artistic success.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 11:22am

The longest running play in the last 20 years on Broadway is Torch Song Trilogy, which played 8 previews and 1222 regular performances. Which isn't *that* long when you compare it to something like Cats or Phantom. So it's not like this straight play death is a recent thing.

But darcey raises an interesting point. I can remember when Take Me Out was playing on Broadway, there were some articles decrying the death of the straight play, as there were only 2 running on Broadway. This year though, is the year of the play. Doubt, Pillowman and Virginia Woolf have all garnered some of the strongest reviews in recent memory and are doing very healthily at the box office. Something you aren't taking into account is that as a rule (though there are of course exceptions), plays have a much lower weekly break even figure than musicals as there are fewer cast members and no orchestra to pay. So a play like Doubt could run on 72% capacity for years and years and years. And the interest in that play will not wane anytime soon. The other play that won the Pulitzer and the Tony and every award in between at the Kerr (Proof) ran for close to 1000 performances and it was rarely ever over 75% capacity.

So I would argue that straight plays aren't dying and never will die. There will always be an audience for them, however much smaller that audience may be than that of musicals. The supply and demand for them is cyclical, as it is for musicals. This year , for the most part, musicals have underwhelmed and the play is the thing once again. Who knows what next season will bring? With Festen and History Boys already confirmed for transfers from London, I don't see the play dying out just yet.

[magruder]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 11:27am

Don't forget, too, that the figures for Doubt and Julius Caesar that you are quoting were for March 28-April 3, during those shows' respective opening weeks, when a sizable amount of comps for press cut into that paid attendance figure. Both should be up when the grosses for last week (April 4-10), get posted later today or tomorrow.

[thepinterpause]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 11:30am

I would take issue with the premise. I've been quite impressed with the quality and diversity of straight plays this season, from the thirteen revivals to the five originals. Those examples you cited include one critically panned show and four shows that are still in previews, or were until last week (preview sales are always much lower.)

I would caution against reading a trend into recent Broadway sales, especially since the tendency in theater, as with everything else, is always to declare a downward spiral. The film critic James Agee once wrote, "The whole business has been dying here, ten years or more. Last year, it seems to me, was the all-time low--- so far." That year, of course, was 1942--- the year of Now, Voyager, The Palm Beach Story and Casablanca.

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 11:57am

Someone is always saying something about theatre is dying.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 1:14pm

Generally speaking, musicals are more popular than plays, and those who aren't "theater people" are more likely to enjoy a musical than a play. Also, there is the argument of "Why should I pay $100 to see onstage what I can see on TV for free?" The experience of seeing a musical live cannot be duplicated, but (at least in some aspects) the experience of seeing a straight play can. Also, keep in mind that in terms of movies, most people see primarily big action/adventure flicks or high comedies rather than dramas, so if someone isn't likely to go pay eight bucks to see a dramatic movie in the cinema, they are even less likely to pay $100 to see the onstage equivalent. Of course, personally, being a "theater person," I would rather see a play over a movie any day, but I'm well aware that most of the population does not share my enthusiasm.

As for straight plays being extinct, that will never happen. There will always be straight plays on Broadway, although because of the high cost of productions, you will almost never see a new work debut on Broadway like you would have a generation ago. For example, "Doubt" was a transfer from a successful off-Broadway run, and "The Pillowman" was first produced to award-winning acclaim in London. So there are definitely LESS straight plays on Broadway than there used to be, but there will always be some.

Hope that helps! I'm 22 by the way.

[thepinterpause]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 1:29pm

I think, though, that the quality of new plays on Broadway is encouraging. I've seen all five of this season's offerings, and four of them are quite excellent. I also hold high hopes for their ticket sales. I wouldn't assume that musicals are inherently more sellable. Maybe the high artistic merit of straight drama this year will lead to a rebirth.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 3:38pm

Something else that could be considered interesting: all five original straight plays on Broadway this season all came as transfers from other venues:

DOUBT premiered as a Manhattan Theatre Club production off-Broadway.

THE PILLOWMAN and DEMOCRACY both transferred from the National Theatre in London.

GEM OF THE OCEAN began at the Yale rep, and played at the Goodman and in LA.

BROOKLYN BOY was commissioned by the South Coast Rep. in Costa Mesa, California.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 3:42pm

I wish there were more straight plays on Broadway. Straight plays are underrated and underappreciated.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 3:42pm

You said it.

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:01pm

In my opinion...I'm 36 by the way . . .
Musicals just sell better because its the spectacle, you see the dancing, the songs, the special effects, the cast of the thousands. You can have a great time at a musical in the last row of the balcony even if your forget your glasses. I don't think you will ever see an END to straight plays on Broadway, but the demand is clearly less, but there will always be a handful. I think you can see a great straight play in community theater, in college, in rep theater, but it is rare when you see a truly great musical anywhere but on Broadway or a tour of a broadway show. For 90% of the pupulation seeing a show on Broadway is an event, and you want it to special in every way and musical just has more dimensions to it than a straight play. Also, to see a straight play now, one must have a name star to open it . . . to illustrate my point, I will use a musically ironically. But take the "Producers", I can't stand Matthew Broderick and I don't like Mel Brooks and Nathan Lane is just okay as far as I am concerned so when Broderick and Lane were in it, I had not interest in seeing it. No name has universal appeal and therefore casting someone because of a name is risky. Plus, I also think people who are inveterate Broadway fans resent stunt casting with movie stars so many "true" fans don't respect the shows with name casting. In addition, you spend 90 bucks to see Kristin Chenowith in "Epic Proportions" and you get her stand-in, it's a very bitter experience. But you spend 90 bucks to see Patrick Cassidy in "Annie Get your Gun" or Jack wagner in "Jeckyl and Hyde" the music can carry you through.

Hope my rambling helped.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:01pm

mmmmmmmmmmm... TAKE ME OUT... *sigh*

[Plum]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:07pm

I think saying they'll become extinct is an exaggeration. Thinking of a historical trend as a straight line that will continue to go in one direction in perpetuity is a mistake, in my experience.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:12pm

It's unfortunate that some people need the glitz and the glamour to have an enjoyable evening. It is a shame that some people need flashy lights and big, brassy music to keep their attention.

And it's also unfortunate that the only way people will see straight plays is if it has a big name. Keep doing this and piece-of-crap shows like BROOKLYN and GOOD VIBRATIONS and the like will live on for years to come.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:21pm

I do wonder whether the day will come, sooner than later, that commercial Broadway gets out of the new play business and leaves that to Off-Broadway and the not-for-profit realm, where the economics make more sense. There just isn't much of an audience for new straight plays on Broadway anymore -- I think most of it died off, moved to Florida or has been priced out of the market by the $90 top for non-musicals these days. Even having rave reviews, Tonys, Pulitzers and movie star names above the title doesn't seem to be enough anymore to keep a new play running more than four or five months, which is not enough time to recoup. Even long-running, critically-acclaimed, relatively inexpensive one person shows -- I Am My Own Wife, Golda's Balcony -- don't seem to be able to turn a profit.

With one or two exceptions, the only nonmusical plays in the last few seasons to turn a profit have been all-star productions of iconic classic plays (Raisin in the Sun, Long Day's Journey, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof et al). In five to ten years, that may be the ONLY type of straight play we'll see on the Broadway stage -- those and if more Billy Crystals want to come and do their solo shows for a few months.

Updated On: 4/11/05 at 04:21 PM

[mikewood]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:24pm

It's unfortunate that some people need the glitz and the glamour to have an enjoyable evening. It is a shame that some people need flashy lights and big, brassy music to keep their attention.

And it's also unfortunate that the only way people will see straight plays is if it has a big name. Keep doing this and piece-of-crap shows like BROOKLYN and GOOD VIBRATIONS and the like will live on for years to come. >>>>>

I agree with much of what you said... but two things, I don't agree Brooklyn is a piece of crap show, and do you agree that you are more likely to see a quality non musical than musical in setting outside Broadway.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:24pm

I believe I read that in the past 5 years, only PROOF and LIFE x 3 recouped their advances. Even shows like THE TALE OF THE ALLERGIST'S WIFE, which had a healthy two year run, didn't turn a profit. Hell, ANGELS IN AMERICA didn't recoup until it went on the road.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:30pm

I wonder if the Best Play Tony race in a decade or so is going to just be a competition between whatever MTC produced at the Biltmore that year vs. whatever LCT produced at the Beaumont (assuming LCT produced a new straight play there, which obviously they don't do every season).

[Joshua488]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:30pm

I am more likely to see a play rather than a musical at any time. Mostly because tickets are (unfortunately) almost always available and I truly appreciate straight plays. Musicals are great and all, but I like a straight play where I am constantly thinking throughout the show. Not a lot of musicals make me think.

Posted: 4/11/05 at 4:43pm

my arguement might be simplistic, but here goes. You can't hum a play.

Most people look to "take something with them" after a live theater experience. Most plays don't offer that, but musicals do. Add to that OBC recordings that one get after seeing a musical, and more importantly before, perpetuate interest, especially for out of towners who are the life blood of NY theater these days.

And, I admit, when I go to NYC, I would much rather see a musical than a play, and I love plays as well as musicals.
Most plays travel better (read: get road tours or are successfully recreated regionally) than musicals,mostly due to great expense of producing musicals versus plays.

Musicals are also MUCH easier to market. Doubtful you will see this happening: Next on TODAY, the cast of Glass Menagerie in perform.

Hope this was helpful

Michael age 43

[Joshua488]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:04pm

Plays offer plenty to take with you after the show. A play might not feed you music that becomes burned into your brain, but it offers a whole world of ideas and thoughts. The problem is that people, in general, are lazy and do not like to think or use their minds anymore. If people bothered to use some of their intelligence, they might realize that a play can be just as fulfilling and entertaining as a musical... during and after the performance.

I absolutely love seeing straight plays with my sister, who is a playwright. After the show, we discuss the play from all aspects for hours on end. I, personally, find it much more exciting than, for instance, "Wow, wasn't that choreography awesome?"

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/11/05 at 5:05pm

I disagree 100%. Most (not all) musicals are mindless fluff that give me NOTHING to "take with me afterwards," while I find that a good play feeds and nourishes the heart, mind and soul.

I'd personally rather see a play than a musical, mostly becuase the odds are better that I'll have a fulfilling time. I find most musicals just aren't very good. There are more things that can go wrong in the creation of a new musical and any one element being below par -- the book, the score, the direction, the casting -- can sink the whole enterprise. Whereas, with a play, if you have a first rate script (which also doesn't happen everyday, of course, but it certainly happens more often than you find a first rate book and score) and a good cast, you're 90% of the way towards a successful theatrical evening. I probably see a half dozen or more very good new plays (between Broadway, off-Broadway and off-off-Broadway) every year for every ONE halfway decent musical.