It seemed like in the 1990's, the best way to have a sure-fire hit in New York was to stage a revival. Shows like "Cabaret", "Annie Get Your Gun", and "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" all did big business. In fact, the "Chicago" revival is still running at the Ambassador theater 15 years after it opened, even spawning an Oscar nominated film version in the process.
Conversely, over the last decade, there is an equally long list of revivals that did not recoup their investment. Some of them, including the 2002 version of "Into The Woods" and the 2005 version of "La Cage Aux Folles" won tony awards. Others, like last year's "Ragtime" and "Finian's Rainbow", garnered rave reviews from critics, none of which translated into money at the box office.
It amazes me how some Broadway producers don't learn from past mistakes. For instance, does anyone believe that Kelsey Grammar is still a big enough star to guarantee huge houses for this season's "La Cage", when the show just failed 5 years ago? How about the revival of "Promises, Promises"? There is no bigger female star on Broadway than Chenowith, but there was also no bigger star than Bernadette Peters in the 90's, when she was paired with a fading TV star, and a Neil Simon script. "The Goodbye Girl" turned out to be one of the ten biggest flops of the last 20 years. Now, fast forward to 2010, replace Martin Short with Sean Hayes, throw in dated Neil Simon material from 40 years ago, and we could have another recipe for failure.
What are the two reasons to do a revival?? Most theater people will tell you this:
A) Because you are stunt casting with an A-list star (Angela Landsbury and Catherine Zeta Jones are proving to be a formidable combination right now in "A Little Night Music")
B) The source material is totally relevant to today's theater audience (The Diane Paulus revival of "Hair")
With all these things being said, there was an official announcement today that Daniel Radcliffe will return to Broadway next year in a revival of "How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying". Don't get me wrong, the theater nerd part of me is intrigued. The businessman part of me??? Eh... not so sure.
The show was last seen in New York in the mid 90's, when Des McAnuff staged it as a star vehicle for Matthew Broderick (and John Stamos after him). The show received generally positive reviews, but closed after a 15 month run, just missing out on recouping it's investment. So what has changed in 2010? The star of the world's biggest film franchise, Daniel Radcliffe, will be on the marquee.
Radcliffe's name was also on the marquee of last season's "Equus", a show that got great reviews and didn't recoup. Of course, one could argue that younger Potter fans weren't going to get mom and dad to spring $125 a pop to take them to see full frontal Harry (not hairy) nudity onstage. But are we sure that they are going to want to pay that amount to see a story about a young man trying to scheme his way up the corporate ladder? Furthermore, is there any evidence that Daniel Radcliffe is even a draw away from the Potter movies? It's not like he's done any commercial films other than that.
Naturally, we have to wait and see how this all plays out. Maybe director Rob Ashford has a concept that will totally reinvent the show and it will be the greatest piece of art of all time. History has shown us though, even if this is an artistic success, it may not be a financial one.
Posts
I saw Daniel Radcliffe in Equus and thought he was very good, although I'm not a big fan of the play. And he did attract a big crowd at the stage door. He might be a bigger draw in a musical. But you're right, it's not a sure thing and there are fewer stars than you think who could fill up a theatre 8 times a week for an extended period.
ReplyDelete