| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:20 pm EDT 07/14/23 |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - NoPeopleLike 12:53 pm EDT 07/14/23 |
|
Again, not the stated mission, but having a “hit” - and as I’ve written on this site in the past, that idea can be measured in many ways, and sometimes the windfall is more about how the institution can then raise more money through contributed income rather than earned income - is what keeps most of these theaters functioning, and it’s why so many of them produce the work they do.
Even Joe Papp readily acknowledged that after he produced “A Chorus Line”, he had to keep producing shows that could transfer and bring in continued revenue to support all of the other work at the theater; he somewhat shadily implied that this was why he was doing “Drood” in the Park, rather than Shakespeare. I always chuckled when Riedel went after Oskar for doing the same thing, implying that he was somehow betraying Papp, when if Riedel had simply read “Free for All”, he would know that the accusation was bogus.
Were your NFPs theater companies? Things might work very differently in other fields. |
|
reply
|
|
| Previous: |
re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - NoPeopleLike 12:53 pm EDT 07/14/23 |
| Next: |
re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - NYCscribe 03:28 pm EDT 07/17/23 |
| Thread: |
|
