Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:25 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Sondheim's Broadway career - ablankpage 04:05 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| The shows that recouped during their Broadway runs were Forum, Company, A Little Night Music and Side by Side by Sondheim. Into the Woods recouped around eight months after closing thanks to additional revenue from the national tour. Sweeney eventually paid off but it took a very long time, around 12 years or so. Had it closed without putting in replacement leads or had it closed two or three weeks after they went into it, it would not have taken so long. I seem to think that Sunday in the Park may have eventually paid off, but if so, it took a comparably long time. I used to know but cannot remember at the moment. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: ablankpage 10:57 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - AlanScott 05:25 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Could you expand a little more on your Sweeney theory? How did putting in new leads prevent it from recouping and how would closing earlier have helped? Also, what was the road block with Into The Woods? The cast isn’t that large for a musical. Was the set especially expensive at the time? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:20 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - ablankpage 10:57 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| What happened with Sweeney is not that unusual. It has to do with the fact that profits are often (perhaps usually) not distributed immediately to the investors. They are held for a bit, often at least in part as insurance against possible money-losing periods in the future. If a show goes through a money-losing period after it has partly returned its investment (and, for that matter, also after returning its investment), the undistributed funds may end being used to make up the losses during slow periods in the hope that the box office will go back up again. I have no way of being sure exactly how much money Sweeney lost between the time the replacement leads took over and the closing, but based on what Variety reported in as the weekly nut (along with variables such as rent and royalties) and the grosses, I think it had to have lost at least $100K and perhaps as much as $300K from the time the replacement leads took over till the closing. The show was not helped by an 11-day transit strike in April 1980, but it was already not doing very well. The loss of (again, just my guess) $100-300K may not sound like that much by todays standards, but it had been capitalized at $1.2 million, although it ended up costing $1.525 million to open. If it did lose something like $300K during that time, that’s 20 percent. Also not helping the investors is that the people who put up the additional money above the capitalization get paid first. I will amend what I wrote earlier to say that they probably should have run it two months with the new leads. Reviews did not appear till two weeks after they took over. They were mostly quite favorable, and it’s only fair to allow time for the effect of the reviews and word-of-mouth to kick in. And then there was the transit strike, and you wouldn’t want to close during that. When the closing was announced in June, it did well for the last two weeks. It’s easy to say this now, of course, but closing at the end of April rather than the end of June would have held down the losses. As for Into the Woods, I have no particular insights. It simply didn’t do well enough to recoup during the Broadway run, despite having relatively low running costs and a relatively low capitalization compared to Phantom. I’m not feeling like doing two or three hours of research to make sure that I’m remembering things correctly and to check on figures, as I did last night with Sweeney. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: ablankpage 06:20 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - AlanScott 05:20 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| No problem! I really appreciate that insight on Sweeney though. Thank you, as always, for your encyclopedia brain. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:07 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - ablankpage 06:20 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| You're welcome. One further thing I realized after posting. If it did lose something 300K during the last four months, that would have been 25 percent, not 20 percent, as the people who had provided the additional money above the initial capitalization had been paid in full. So 300K would have been 25 percent of the $1.2 million that was then being paid off. Of course, perhaps it was less than $300K, but whatever it lost, it was not a help to paying off. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Having over half recoup on initial run | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 08:10 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 08:09 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - AlanScott 05:25 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Is pretty impressive for any composer. And I think we have to add Gypsy and west side story to list since he was the Lyricist on those hugely successful shows. I do hope he finishes probably his final work. Road show took about ten years and so seems buneul. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Bunuel | |
| Posted by: stevemr 11:07 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: Having over half recoup on initial run - dramedy 08:09 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| I believe it was reported over a year ago that the project had been abandoned. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: peter3053 05:34 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - AlanScott 05:25 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| The wild triumph of Sondheim and those associated with him has been a willingness to risk unsettling material in a pleasure-zone like Broadway - again and again! What might be interesting to calculate is which of his shows has been revived the most often across the globe, even after having done poorly in an original run. I suspect that, of the commercial "failures", Merrily might be the most successful of his career? Certainly it rates as a towering work of art, a questing after the deepest values of human existence. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: ablankpage 11:07 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - peter3053 05:34 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed. He takes huge swings and, even when they don’t immediately land with audiences, they’ve always pushed the art form forward. Recent commercial successes like Fun Home and The Band’s Visit arguably wouldn’t have existed without him. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:46 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - peter3053 05:34 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| If we're looking at major productions - Broadway, West End, and the like - then I think "Follies" is giving "Merrily" a run for its money, and "Pacific Overtures" isn't really a slouch either. "Merrily" is a tricky show to track partly because so many productions have been attempts to solve the show and prove that it can work; I don't know how we rank those against productions of the other shows that were more straightforward. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: peter3053 11:19 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - Singapore/Fling 10:46 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| Often when Merrily is revived, the same doubts get expressed - "it never really works", "the lead isn't likeable" - but then audiences see it and come out pondering their life choices. It works at the deepest level. The authorial skill on hand is the reason. It may be the one Sondheim musical that is still performed two hundred years from now, because the struggle between idealism and compromise is inherent in our human species. And I speak as someone who loves Pacific Overtures, Sweeney Todd, and so many others with a passion. And even Passion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:28 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - peter3053 11:19 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think you're talking for a lot of people when you say "the audience". This audience member finally saw the show at the Menier in 2013, and he went in expecting to see the naysayers proved wrong... and left realizing that the naysayers were right all along and that the show simply does not work. The book is shallow, the characters unlikable, and the dramatic stakes ultimately pretty slight: a rather mediocre composer decides to pursue popular success rather than the artistic success that his two friends who overestimate his talent mistakenly think him capable of. Meh. Yes, the score is gorgeous, but a score does not make a musical succeed, and in this case I don't think it can (and so far hasn't). Whether or not the show will be performed in two hundred years is beyond our knowledge, but what we do know is that it's one of the few Sondheim shows not to get a Broadway revival ("Saturday Night", "Anyone Can Whistle", "Passion", and "Road Show" being the others), and it's not for lack of trying. If I had to pick the one show of his that would still be done in 200 years, I think "Into the Woods", "Sweeney Todd", and "Forum" are the best candidates; they are based on or inspired by stories that have stood the test of time, and they work very solidly as pieces of entertainment. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: peter3053 04:15 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - Singapore/Fling 12:28 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| In Merrily, a young man is inspired to transform the world for the better, using his gift, music, to do so; he intends to write shows which will illuminate ( "tell 'em things they don't know") the human condition, to sustain idealism and forge social progress ("Me and you/ Me and you / Me and you / Me and you!"). However, through a weakness for personal comfort over commitment (a weakness many of us share), he chooses the path of expedient rewards - fame, glamor, the use of women for personal ambition and sexual pleasure (not an abiding love), and riches. His work ceases to be an expression of his art, and becomes merely a populist means to a self-indulgent end. Thus he moves from the chance to be genuinely productive in this world, for the greater good of all, to a form of despair which is mere selfish comfort - despair at its root meaning means to be de-spirited, usually by too much attachment to the rewards of materialism. He moves from "me and you" to being a card-carrying member of the "Me" generation. (The "Us" of "Who's Like us?" is progressively ghosted as he vanishes inside "Franklin Shephard Inc.") At the same time, ironically, his thirst for public success co-incides with the loss of his own privacy and public exposure by a gossip-thirsty media mob; his human distinctiveness becomes swallowed by the fashionable, integrity-less blob, and he is rendered artistically and therefore, for him, morally impotent and expressively infertile. He loses his greater humanity. This is a profound tale, told in an alarming way - that is, told in a way that alarms us the most the more beautiful his character becomes, at the beginning which is the end. There are many great works of art that incorporate flaws - flaws which become mysteries over time (Does Gertrude know her new husband murdered Hamlet's father? How many children hath Lady Macbeth? Why didn't Emilia protest about the handkerchief in time before Othello killed Desdemona?). There are many great works which include dislikeable characters; as Sondheim and Weidman themselves said in Road Show, sometimes the worst example is the best. For ambition, for insight, for artistry which cries out for the value of love over selfihsness, Merrily ranks among the greats. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:57 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - peter3053 04:15 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| I loved your analysis. I would only argue that a major flaw of the book of MERRILY, and maybe even some of the score (at least one song of it, anyway), is that Charley's constant wheedling and condemnation of Frank for "selling out" is laid on way too thick and is sometimes presented in a way that makes Charley seem irrational-- as in that weird moment when he freaks out after hearing that Frank has worked out a deal for a film version of a musical that Charley and Frank wrote together. This sends Charley off the deep end, because work on that film will prevent work on the other, passion-project musical that the team has been planning to complete for years. Yes, I would say it makes some sense for Charley to be upset about the film for that reason, at least to a certain degree, but.....come on! He's still going to get a MOVIE VERSION of a musical that he co-wrote. So I would say his reaction is a bit much, to put it mildly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: peter3053 05:30 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - Michael_Portantiere 11:57 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| I see your point, but I wonder if it is not more of a case of the straw that broke the camel's back - a build up of disappointments and broken promises from Frank. Often in relationships, little things become a catalyst and cause a blow-up which may seem out of proportion to the passerby, but really indicate a subterranean pressure in the friendship that has built over a long time before the eruption? And Mary is always trying to paper over the cracks, because she likens their togetherness to the ideal world she envisioned way back on the rooftop - and of course, Charley , being more naturally compassionate than Frank, withdraws his anger too often, for her sake. The complications of long-term relationship festering? So I wonder if the issue is not the movie deal itself, but that as a sign to Charley of a whole pattern he has resented for years? One other interesting thing, for me, is that, in youth, Frank has the magnetism of an idealist, but not the integrity of the authentic idealist. Charley and Mary lack the surface charm, but each in their own way have more authenticity about what they hold to be important. Charley's anger helps him survive and remain true to his beliefs; Mary can't be angry without condemning her own illusion of Frank, and so sinks into alcoholism. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 10:41 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:40 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - peter3053 04:15 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| That's a great take on "Merrily", but I think it only really works if you listen to a few of the songs and ignore the actual book of the show and the characters as written - which people have tried to do for 40 years without cracking the code. Your take also presumes that the kind of things young 20 year olds say - "we're brilliant, unique, and going to change the world!" - have any real weight. My biggest disappointment in finally seeing Merrily was discovering that it *wasn't* the story you describe, and which I expected, because none of the characters rise to that level of greatness for even a moment - but that greatness is generally an illusion (or delusion) of youth to begin with. Instead, we have three people with high hopes who discover that in the act of living and making choices, they disappoint themselves and each other. And most of all, your version of the story is told forwards, but the show is told backwards. And that backwards telling really mucks things up without having a strong enough pay-off. The show only seems to work as an album, where we can dig into the arcana of the songs once we already know the story - or have the freedom to fill in the blanks and tell our own. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: peter3053 05:46 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - Singapore/Fling 10:40 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Fair points, but I think youthful idealism is a beautiful thing, and the tragedy of life - captured powerfully because of Merrily's reverse structure - is that the world, which is "us" and all our weaknesses we bring - plays havoc with our best intentions. The truly bold, who shed the shackles of human compromise, are usually arrested, removed, or lionised much later as saints. I recall the line from Anyone Can Whistle in which Hapgood says he is not only an idealist, but a "practising" one. They're very rare, which is the tragedy of the human condition. I think Merrily, told backwards, makes us especially aware of the tragedy. Personally, I don't mind sitting in a theatre studying unlikeable people when there is a moral purpose to it; I'm not all that fond of Oedipus, that arrogant sod; or that hormone-crazed Romeo, the fool; or Henry-bloody-Higgins, that egotistical power-hungry creep; and as for that narrow-minded Nellie Forbush, who grows more dislikeable as the show goes on, rather than the reverse (until the end....) - mind you, as for that overbearing lover she's got ........ or that Cable character .... or - or - Bloody Mary, a mother who does that !!! Sorry, where was I? As I say, better to study the unlikeable in a purposeful, artificial space - it's slightly better than having to put up with them in real life! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: dbdbdb 01:55 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - Singapore/Fling 10:40 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| This is exactly right. One of the show's biggest problems is that you're seeing the divorce before you know anything about the marriage, and you have no idea why you should care. Michael Porttantiere also alludes to the other big problem in his comments about Charley's hysterical overreaction to Frank's choices: The show seems to suggest that writing Broadway musicals is a beautiful, noble pure calling while making films is morally ruinous. Well, I guess that's true. Sometimes. Maybe. Under certain circumstances... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:12 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - dbdbdb 01:55 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| "The show seems to suggest that writing Broadway musicals is a beautiful, noble pure calling while making films is morally ruinous. Well, I guess that's true. Sometimes. Maybe. Under certain circumstances..." Ha! Exactly. But also, seriously: How believable is it that Charley would become enraged at the information that Frank has worked a deal so that the musical that Frank and Charley wrote TOGETHER will be made into a Hollywood film -- so enraged that he then utterly humiliates his longtime friend and writing partner during an interview on live television? I mean, I know that musical is not his passion project, but........seriously?? I was sad when I very belatedly realized some years ago that, while "Franklin Shepard, Inc." is a brilliant song and a tour-de-force in and of itself, it actually does great damage to the show as a whole and to the character of Charley in particular, because it portrays him as emotionally reckless and childish in his big moment, and I don't THINK that's how the authors wanted us to view him. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Last Edit: Quicheo 11:00 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 10:59 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - Singapore/Fling 10:40 am EDT 04/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| I can speak only having seen the Kennedy Center production, which worked for me because in each scene, it showed the results of a choice made in the recent past, leading one step closer to the characters' eventual unhappiness and disappointment. I wondered, how could they be so foolish to have made that choice? Then we go back in time a bit and see exactly why, and even understand exactly why. And each time, the lead character makes a choice we know isn't good, he is influenced by a different set of people often with good intentions. There is no one set of people who would have guided him right, only small choices against his internal sense that chipped another piece off his integrity and moved him one more step off course. I have no idea if he is as talented as his friends think he is. I do know, he was happier when he made time to indulge that talent. I think, like Follies, it captures the regret of the late middle aged people of its time, in this case, wealthy 80s people, and allows them to wonder how they ended up so unhappy. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: seenenuf 07:04 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - peter3053 05:34 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Certainly it rates as a towering work of art..." Really? Would you please name 3 other towering works so I have a point of reference? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sondheim's Broadway career | |
| Posted by: DistantDrumming 06:30 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Sondheim's Broadway career - peter3053 05:34 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| It would also be interesting (though, I imagine, impossible) to know how much revenue each of those shows has generated from publishing, subsequent professional and amateur productions and adaptations into other media. I imagine for some, like Into the Woods, it's very impressive. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.064692 seconds.