Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Did the original Broadway production of CHICAGO make money, lose money, or break even? | |
| Posted by: FleetStreetBarber 03:51 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Did the original Broadway production of CHICAGO make money, lose money, or break even? - AlanScott 02:53 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
|
|
|
| According to the Burns Mantle Yearbook for 1976-1977, Chicago had became a hit by the end of the '76-'77 season. | |
| reply to this message |
| Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:28 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Did the original Broadway production of CHICAGO make money, lose money, or break even? - FleetStreetBarber 03:51 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
|
|
|
| That is a Best Plays I have, and I should have looked in there. I was going by what was said in a Variety article titled "Broadway Getting More and Costlier Shows; Scorecard of Hits, Flops," from the issue dated August 31, 1977: "Two shows, 'Chicago' and 'Shenandoah,' did not completely recoup their original investments, according to the Attorney General's report." And yet in the Variety list of the financial statuses of 1976-77 Broadway productions, in the edition dated June 8, 1977, Chicago was one of three shows listed as hits among four that were "Previously Not Classified." The other two hits were The Belle of Amherst and Me and Bessie, and the flop was Knock Knock. Since Best Plays took its info on hits and flops from Variety, it makes sense that they would have listed it as a hit in the 1976-77 annual, but I wonder why at the end of August Variety contradicted what it had stated on June 8. Had the producers announced that it had recouped but the Attorney General later said it had not? Or . . .? I don't know. FWIW, I can't find anything more on the question in Variety, which doesn't mean that there wasn't something more published that I'm just not finding. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:28 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
| In reply to: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety - AlanScott 06:28 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
|
|
|
| Does the article say what report it was referring to? It is not normal for the Attorney General to opine on recoupment. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:56 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety - ryhog 09:28 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
|
|
|
| For some reason, in late August 1977, New York State Attorney General Louis Lefkowitz released a report on the financial situation on Broadway in terms of hits, flops, profits, losses. Can't find a whole lot of info on it. He was busy with Broadway that year, also dealing with the estate left by J. J. Shubert, which had been fought over for years, and with Adela Holzer. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:06 am EDT 09/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety - AlanScott 09:56 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
|
|
|
| That makes sense, kinda, but it doesn't instill me with buckets of confidence. I did not quickly find anything more but I did find the linked and interesting article from the Times 7 years earlier that suggests, to me at least, that his office was coming up with some fast and dirty numbers that would not necessarily align with an accountant's determination of if and when a show recouped. I confess my interest in theatrical financial numbers had not kicked in in 1970, or 77, but I can't imagine how these numbers would be available in final form in the snapshot he took (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. So the bottom line is I would be more inclined to rely on systematic reporting bearing in mind that then as now reports of recouping are haphazard. (Also note that there is some mishmash of tours in his 1970 report, and remember that money that can look like it should be going to investors can and not infrequently is diverted to other budgets within the producing entity, much to the routine dismay of some investors.) If you look at the link, don't miss the bit below about the city's purchase of the Public Theater. |
|
| Link | Lefkowitz Figures Angels Lost Nearly $1.5‐Million in Theater |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:49 pm EDT 09/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety - ryhog 12:06 am EDT 09/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| I think it may simply be insufficient detail in the article. It says, "The loss, according to the Attorney General, is a net figure offset by the profits derived from shows that opened in earlier seasons and were still running." This makes me think that the report as a whole (perhaps it was an annual thing for a while?) was simply focusing just on money earned and lost during that particular season, with it being clear that some shows still running would bring profits in future seasons, and those profits from shows produced in past seasons would be counted in future seasons. If I'm being clear. Still, I agree that such reports generally are of limited use. Well, maybe you don't agree. :) I wonder if the 1977 report was perhaps relying on figures from just before Chicago recouped. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:22 pm EDT 09/07/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety - AlanScott 05:49 pm EDT 09/07/18 | |
|
|
|
| I don't disagree with anything you say. I think the state may have done these reports because they were trying to wrap their head around various questionable things. The only person who can declare a show recouped officially is the accountant, and it can only happen in hindsight, so I think you're right about what this report may have been doing. I dug as deep as I could dig on the internet and came up dry on the report. If someone was sufficiently interested they could file a FOIL request and get it I would think but that's beyond my level of curiosity. I never do any digging without finding (or re-finding) something fun. In this case, it was the contemporaneous lawsuit filed by Jerry Orbach against Rex Reed for calling him a "tone deaf mediocrity" (among other unpleasantries) in a review. Orbach lost. The review, he alleged, had been prompted by a dust-up at Sardi's between Reed and Orbach's first wife. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.017999 seconds.