Is It Ever OK to Cancel a Show If the Audience is Too Small?

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:08pm

An actor friend and I got into a rather heated argument today about whether or not it's ever OK to cancel a show.

Our discussion did not involve Acts of God like power loss or bad weather, rather, we discussed whether the number of people in the audience was ever justification for canceling a performance.

Those of us on this board who have performed beyond school or who simply attend a lot of fringe theatre have all been in the situation where there's more people in the show than there are in the audience. The house could also be so small that it simply isn't worth putting the show on. I'm talking 10-15 people.

I firmly believe that it is perfectly acceptable to cancel the show and give people tickets for another performance. My friend was vehemently against this. He believes that the show should go on no matter what and that actors should just suck it up that there aren't many people in the audience.

I think the show must go on thing needs some modification. I think that, for example, a comedy or big action piece that requires audiences laughing and participating needs a lot of noise and energy. When the house is tiny, the actors feel terrible and the audience feels terrible, and it can become impossible to get past.

Even for dramas, the actors onstage are still people despite their task at hand. They can see when their work isn't being given its best chance to succeed. But should the actor just toil on anyway?

It's a sticky situation. I can see great reasons on both sides. Obviously were not discussing Broadway commercial theatre, although I guess a possible connection could be the producers canceling The Boy from Oz on those couple of days that Hugh Jackman was out.

What do we think?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:10pm

Well, more than likely you've already paid the actors to be there and you've already paid the rent on the theater, and all the musicians are already there, etc. So, it would just make sense to go on with the performance as scheduled. There's no sense in sending everyone home after they've already gotten into all the makeup and whatnot. It's just a waste of makeup and people's time. They came to see a show, so give them a show.

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:14pm

I'm talking in the more general community theatre, fringe theatre, school theatre, etc. sense. Is it a violation of what the theatre is supposed to be about?

To add more context, this stemmed from an incident my friend had experienced with an Equity house where a similar cancellation of a show occurred.

[Patronus]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:22pm

Is it a violation of what the theatre is supposed to be about?

Absolutely not. It's impossible to truly define what theatre is "supposed to be about". It's about different things for different people.

This is a multi-layered question. In terms of school level productions there has to be some awareness of the work that the kids put into the show. Since they aren't being paid I would feel a bit odd about cancelling performances for them. Most of the ticket sales for a performance at this level goes to paying the actual royalty and production costs and in the unlikely event of a profit it usually goes into the theatre department's budge for future productions.

On a community theatre level I think it has to be more of a business decision. If actors are contracted, if they are equity - productions costs/theatrical space have already been paid for etc...I would say the show should probably go on just from business perspective unless the projected ticket sales doesn't cover the production costs and some out clause was negotiated in the performers contract.

If it's open contracts that depends on production dates and money will be lost to perform to near empty houses then I have no problem cancelling a show.

You seems to be asking this question from the perspective of "the spirit of the show must go on" yet it seems that you are referring to amateur performers which makes it a bit different of a beast altogether.

I don't feel that actors, directors, producers etc "owe anything" to the "ideals of theatre" or any other mantra that can't universally be defined.

Assuming we are talking just individual performances of a run rather than the entire run itself, I think it would be in poor taste to cancel a show after some patrons have already made the trip to the show unless it was for a specific reason like health etc. As a theatregoer, I'd be pretty irritated if I made the trip to a theatre and was told the show wouldn't be performed because they didn't sell enough tickets. If they contacted me a day or two before my ticketed date, it wouldn't bother me as much.

In order to comment on the specific circumstance that you are asking about we'd need more details. Updated On: 10/2/06 at 07:22 PM

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:30pm

Um, when the audience is too small, they do more than cancel one show. They cancel all future shows. It's called closing. Many shows have done so before from the long running hits (Cats) to the one night flops (The Utter Glory of Morrissey Hall)

[bta212]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:45pm

I certainly have been in the audience on occasions when there were huge numbers of empty seats. It is very uncomfortable, and when the performance is intended to be an "event"--even more so. One's feelings of empathy for the performers are so great--they must be so embarassed, the evening is such a failure etc.--that it's hard to imagine how the performance can go on.

To a greater or lesser degree, however, once the lights go down and the show begins, I have always been glad that I saw the show. I guess it depends upon the chemistry of the evening.

The least sucessful was last year's 'Broadway Diva Christmas', which we saw on December 31st. The show was written and performed as a joyful holiday celebration--by New Year's Eve day, XMas songs are tired and worn out, and who the Heck buys a ticket for a Xmas show after Xmas? The audience was VERY sparse, and the whole thing felt like a mistake. Once the cast got going, though, it was enjoyable, although there were definitely moments where a raucous crowd filled with holiday cheer was supposed to join in the fun....and it didn't happen.

I was in the audience for one of Liza's Holiday shows at Town Hall, (2003?) and it was (maybe) 1/3 full. Ushers kept telling us that the producers were "inviting" us to move up, until they had packed the front/center of the theatre. The lights went down, Liza came out, and we all learned about Star Power--she sang like they were hanging off the rafters; I still remember it as an exhilarating evening.

Similarly, I saw 'Dirty Blond' at the very end of its run in London, and there were very few of us. Once again, once the show began, Claudia Shear and Kevin Chamberlin were so compelling that the "real" world absolutely disapppeared.

I think for a serious performer, those are the nights that test your mettle, develop your muscle and teach you to "sell" your performance, no matter what. I would also imagine it as an opportunity to take some chances with your performance--what have you got to lose?

Updated On: 10/2/06 at 07:45 PM

[flaemmchen]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:50pm

I say that if people have made it out to see the show, and your actors are there and ready to perform, then it's definitely not okay to cancel the show. There have been some nights on Broadway where the weather is terrible and the house is barely half full, but they still do the show.

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:52pm

There is some sort of theatre "rule", that if there is more performers onstage than there is in the audience, then it's understandable to cancel that performance... but of course it depends a lot on the numbers on both sides.

I went once to a show at a Fringe, when there was me and another lady only.
The play dealt with graphic subject matter, so I understand how uncomfortable it would have been to perform such show for the both of us, so they cancelled the show.

It all really depends.

[buffyactsing]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:56pm

I did a show with a cast of 11 with 5 people in the audience.

If everything is already paid for, with no chance of reimbursment (if money is a factor), do the show. From my perspective, you should perform because you love theatre, and the size of the audience should not matter.

[ILoveMyDictionary]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 7:58pm

I don't think that the show should be canceled. I do believe that the audience should be given the option to get their money back to attend another performance it they choose to do so, because they'd feel awkward sitting in a house with so few people.

[lfae]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 8:03pm

One of my friends did a show a few years ago with a cast of 11 and one night they had an audience of two. They went on with it!

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 8:31pm

Re: lfae

What show was this and what was it for?

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 8:43pm

The theatre I worked at years ago cancelled shows due to audience numbers. This was a problem following 9-11 if I recall correctly.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 8:59pm

I've been in those audiences, and I can tell you that it's a mixed bag: sometimes, you feel freer to laugh and applaud, sometimes you sit there embarrassed for everyone involved. But I wouldnt cancel a performance just because there were a half dozen people sitting there watching. Just do it. Call it a pick up rehearsal if you need that kind of motivation, but just freaking do it.

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 9:03pm

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. It really is an interesting question. :)

Posted: 10/2/06 at 9:05pm

one time i went to a karen finley performance & there were only about 25 people in the audience. it was ticketed seating, so we were all scattered throughout the theater.
she called us all down to fill the first two rows & it was a beautiful powerful show.
ive seen her other times & its always been a fantastic & intense experience, but because she acknowledged the low turnout & worked with it, it made us all felt like were in it together.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 9:07pm

I'd agree with your actor friend. The best production of Our Town I've ever seen was in an old movie house. I was one of four people in the audience.

[Lois]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 9:15pm

A few years ago, there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle by the theater critic about awkward occasions when he had been the only person to show up for a performance, and what had happened at those times. The theater and actors didn't necessarily know that he was a critic, and I think some performances were cancelled and others weren't. If anyone can find it online, it would be a good link for this thread.

[stevenycguy]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 9:18pm

Has anyone ever been to a show that's been so bad that everyone (in the small audience) walked out at intermission? If there's no audience left after intermission, I bet they'd cancel the rest of that show :)

[factorykid2]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 9:31pm

I think that if an audience (of even one) has shown up for your show, the show goes on. I think that it can be modified, in some way acknowledging low attendence, which is probably easier to do in smaller, fringier (is that a word?) productions.

I have been to at least a handful of performances at which the cast outnumbered the audience....I have seen it happen at Improv theater stuff a couple of times. Also a really terrific local production of Oklahoma....

[allofmylife]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 9:38pm

The show goes on. If there is one person out there, it should go on. Hell, everyone could use another rehearsal.

[alterego]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 9:39pm

I, like blaxx thought there was some Equity ruling that said if the cast is larger than the audience it is permissable to cancel the show.

I saw HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH here in Melbourne at the weekend and while the show was good I was amongst 37 in a house that holds 900. It was uncomfortable when lights moved out to the auditorium and you could see all those empty seats.

[actor]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 9:47pm

This is a great question. Personally, I think it's wrong to suddenly cancel a show and I doubt this is very common. When everything's already paid for and tickets are already sold, it's wrong to cancel a show and doesn't usually happen. There are tons of people who save up to see a Broadway show and get their hopes up for it. There are also tons of families who have paid large amounts of money to see a show and they should get a chance to see it.

I believe that a show's closing should be announced in advance. The few people who have already booked tickets for that night in the distant future should be refunded. If it's a good show that has run forever and is simply is going broke, this will probably sell out all of the upcoming shows, giving the show enough money to survive for the time being. That, in my opinion, would be a strategic way to close a show.

Posted: 10/2/06 at 10:13pm

When I ran a non-Equity theater, we had a whopping 4 people one night for our comedy God's Favorite. We asked them if they might feel a bit uncomfortable being the only ones there and asked if they wanted to stay or come back another night. They were game, as were those of us in the cast and it turned out to be one of the best shows of the run. They foursome was really into it and enjoyed it and we enjoyed them tremendously.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 10/2/06 at 10:23pm

The show must....

....go on?